Not sure what you mean. Are you saying I'm using hyperbole there? If so, its practically a direct quote. Here -
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/22/re-that-heroes-of-the-storm-interview/#more-177204
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Dustin Browder apologizes for the RPS interview
- Thread starter Dawg
- Start date
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying I'm using hyperbole there? If so, its practically a direct quote. Here -
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/11/22/re-that-heroes-of-the-storm-interview/#more-177204
Glass Shark
Banned
Just because you don't feel strongly about something doesn't mean someone else's emotions about it are not real.
I don't believe for one second his eyes were welling up with tears as he wrote that piece. I'm not that gullible, and I detest dramatics used as a tactic.
You can't claim hyperbole just because you don't share the emotion.
NullPointer
Member
No need to apologize, but probably smart to do so anyway.
LightofRohan
Member
Oh no, not at all. I'm just always annoyed by the GAF mentality of getting overzealous about transcribed interviews. As an example, I remember a little bit back there was a in-person interview with a developer and it was transcribed to their website, then a blog quoted from that transcription and then someone posted a paraphrased version of it on Twitter, then GAF made a thread about it with a paraphrased version of the Tweet for the title. Which caused a shitstorm of people making broad accusations about the person, when in reality it is hard to derive context from that mess...
Man. You need to work on your false equivalence analogies.
Alec
Member
I'm with you.
TatteredHat
Member
Considering that he's already acknowledging that he thinks the criticism is valid in the initial answer to the question, I can't really blame the guy for getting annoyed when he then gets lectured on the same issue a second and third time. HOTS is basically a fanservice-game with previously established characters, was the interviewer expecting them to completely redesign every existing character or something? I don't understand what he wanted beyond acknowledgement that the designs might be considered problematic to some people.
dragonbane
Member
RPS handled it like idiots though. They don't deserve any credit for asking tough questions when they don't know how to do it intelligently. Read the interview Metro did with Mark Rubin to see how to do it right. And people gave the site credit for it, because the journalist did a good job. I'm sure no one here has a problem with RPS asking a tough question. The interview reads like the interviewer has an agenda and wanted to accuse somebody, which annoys me.
This is one of the worst posts I've read in a while and pretty intellectually dishonest if you seriously think this is even in the same ball park as what actually happened.
That's not what he's apologizing for.
What's with people's idea that he was fishing for an apology?
Oh my... good god. The internet has really killed personal lives. Listen, bub: I don't wanna hear about your sob story. I don't want to hear what makes you emotional. You, a journalist, are wanting a pity party after you tried to be serious. You don't have what it takes to be a journalist, and it kinda disgusts me that Browder apologized and thus vindicated your emotional outburst.
What happened, man, what happened...
Hot Coldman
Banned
Yep, I absolutely agree. Just giving some context.
Did you read anything in the OP at all or just post something as quickly as you could without trying to get any context?
Open Source
Banned
Because they need to comport with the morals of the neo-puritans, lest they be crusaded against.
NegativeCero
Banned
I think that the interviewer should apologize to him. That whole thing came off as the RPS guy going into the interview with intentions to make it controversial. I don't think that a random interview was the best way to bring this issue up. Maybe doing it in a more holistic way by interviewing multiple developers.
Yes, no one should ever ask real questions. They should all be "how come your game is so awesome?".
Did he come off as preachy? Probably. But I would rather see the uncomfortable than the standard.
Okay, okay, I know it's not equivalent because one's relevant to video games and the other's not. All I'm saying is that just because a journalist asks a tough question does not mean that's the tough question that I am looking for. There, is that fine? Or am I still being intellectually dishonest?
Well, not all interviews are going to be tailored to your exact interests. My point is, why do you care if he asked him a challenging question about character design in a genre that this game is in? Who does that hurt? How many questions does he get asked daily? Who cares if this guy threw him a screwball once?
The questions asked assume a number of things which are hardly established facts, namely: 1) that the female character design in Blizzard games is 'hyper-sexualized' in the first place; 2) that Blizzard's character design won't empower some people and they won't feel "awesome"; and 3) that Blizzard doesn't care about empowerment.
It'd be like asking President Obama something absurd like "Why are you hiding the fact that you weren't born in the United States?" when there is no evidence (and quite a lot to the contrary) that that's the case.
There's hardly a theme of hyper-sexualization in Blizzard's games if you look at what they've produced as a whole, unless you happen to think this is somehow hyper-sexualized:
spandexmonkey
Banned
If there's one thing the US needs, it's more sexual repression. I hope more game sites begin moralizing, it's journalism.
notworksafe
Member
When's he going to apologize for StarCraft 2?
The questions asked assume a number of things which are hardly established facts, namely: 1) that the female character design in Blizzard games is 'hyper-sexualized' in the first place; 2) that Blizzard's character design won't empower some people and they won't feel "awesome"; and 3) that Blizzard doesn't care about empowerment.
It'd be like asking President Obama something absurd like "Why are you hiding the fact that you weren't born in the United States?" when there is no evidence (and quite a lot to the contrary) that that's the case.
There's hardly a theme of hyper-sexualization in Blizzard's games if you look at what they've produced as a whole, unless you happen to think this is somehow hyper-sexualized:
You found an example that you think isn't hyper-sexualized - congratulations! This was on row 2 of a google image search for World of Warcraft:
cramoss
Member
This.
Shrike_Priest
Member
Every. Single. Time.
The very fact that every time a games journalist presses a developer on genderist representation they get this enormous backlash is reason enough for them to keep doing it.
If someone would actually just say, "Hey, I like tits and ass in my video games. I enjoy them more because they're nice to look at, shouldn't I be able to enjoy that?", then we'd actually have to debate that. That'd be more legit than the discussion at hand.
As long as developers continue to make designs that are sexualized, while knowing that they are, because of: tradition, marketing, comic books, or anything else other than characterization, journalist and gamers should question that just like they should be able to question space marines or any other lame design choice.
The very fact that every time a games journalist presses a developer on genderist representation they get this enormous backlash is reason enough for them to keep doing it.
If someone would actually just say, "Hey, I like tits and ass in my video games. I enjoy them more because they're nice to look at, shouldn't I be able to enjoy that?", then we'd actually have to debate that. That'd be more legit than the discussion at hand.
As long as developers continue to make designs that are sexualized, while knowing that they are, because of: tradition, marketing, comic books, or anything else other than characterization, journalist and gamers should question that just like they should be able to question space marines or any other lame design choice.
Maybe I enjoy seeing skimpy female characters. But that's beside the point. It bothers me because people are believing that these are the tough questions we want to hear. They aren't. And now I look like I can never be pleased because I don't care about questions regarding misogyny in the gaming industry.
There really is, which makes his apparent unpreparedness for this line of questioning a bit bizarre.
NoMoreTrolls
Banned
You kidding me? I've seen porn that is less sexual than that character model! That shit has made me stand at full attention in this conference room at work... very awkward. Thanks, Blizzard, for ruining my work reputation with your salacious character design!The questions asked assume a number of things which are hardly established facts, namely: 1) that the female character design in Blizzard games is 'hyper-sexualized' in the first place; 2) that Blizzard's character design won't empower some people and they won't feel "awesome"; and 3) that Blizzard doesn't care about empowerment.
It'd be like asking President Obama something absurd like "Why are you hiding the fact that you weren't born in the United States?" when there is no evidence (and quite a lot to the contrary) that that's the case.
There's hardly a theme of hyper-sexualization in Blizzard's games if you look at what they've produced as a whole, unless you happen to think this is somehow hyper-sexualized:
Obvious /s
Why do you care too? if we are going this route then we shouldn't be in a forum.
Now don't get me wrong, I want them to keep doing it. I want them to get WAY more aggressive than they have been.
What I don't want is the integrity of the entire interview to be lost because you decided to some gotcha ambush BS like bringing up important issues that require time and thought to answer in any sort of meaningful way so you can extend the life of 1 interview into 5 corresponding articles that you get blown up on Twitter for a few days.
It's not that he asked the question that was shitty, it's how he asked and his attitude afterwards that's the problem.
The questions asked assume a number of things which are hardly established facts, namely: 1) that the female character design in Blizzard games is 'hyper-sexualized' in the first place; 2) that Blizzard's character design won't empower some people and they won't feel "awesome"; and 3) that Blizzard doesn't care about empowerment.
It'd be like asking President Obama something absurd like "Why are you hiding the fact that you weren't born in the United States?" when there is no evidence (and quite a lot to the contrary) that that's the case.
There's hardly a theme of hyper-sexualization in Blizzard's games if you look at what they've produced as a whole, unless you happen to think this is somehow hyper-sexualized:
Yeah this is....no. I see where you're trying to go with this, but...
Blizzard is just as guilty of this stuff as any other game developer out there.
The main problems with StarCraft II are shit story in the SP campaign and poor MP balance, which are Chris Metzen and David Kim's faults, respectively.
I think you meant to say that line to RPS
The interviewer was attacking Browder's art team. I'm familiar with the original interview. I read it.
I have no problem with RPS asking about the character design. But they got their answer, then followed it up with this atrocity of a question:
RPS said:
Look at the actual question being asked here. "Why shouldn't everyone feel empowered?" What a complete joke. It assumes that the entire point of the game is to empower people and that women could never feel that sort of empowerment if some of the characters in the game are oversexualized. This question right here is where I wrote off RPS as garbage. Ask about the oversexualization, it's a good question that should be asked, but when the creator responds with "yeah, that's what we make, dumb oversexualized comic book characters" don't chastise them for keeping women from feeling empowered.
jim2point0
Banned
This might win the award for most useless drive-by post I've seen today.
I think this is the case, too.
His answer was legitimate, whether you like the reasoning or not, is another matter.
I also don't think the RPS dude should apologize, he's entitled to ask relevant questions, that's his job, although the attitude wasn't exactly the best one.
Still, i don't think either had to apologize for anything, really.
Doing so makes you look like the bigger man though, so kudos to the Blizzard guy.
Except that's not what the character actually looks like at all in the game itself...
I don't understand what you're asking me. I don't care that he asked him this question. I think he should be allowed to ask whatever question he wants.
But its not about the tough questions you want to hear, when people say they want journalists to ask tough questions they dont mean the tough questions YOU want to hear, what you are proposing is no different than CNN's approach of insisting on integrating polls and twitter to their news, you are effectively saying you want journalists to be biased by wanting them to asks some questions and not ask others.
reptilescorpio
Member
notworksafe
Member
Lets agree to disagree on that
You realize some furry is probably gone into full boner mode seeing that image right? Its sexual.. just not for me and you.The questions asked assume a number of things which are hardly established facts, namely: 1) that the female character design in Blizzard games is 'hyper-sexualized' in the first place; 2) that Blizzard's character design won't empower some people and they won't feel "awesome"; and 3) that Blizzard doesn't care about empowerment.
It'd be like asking President Obama something absurd like "Why are you hiding the fact that you weren't born in the United States?" when there is no evidence (and quite a lot to the contrary) that that's the case.
There's hardly a theme of hyper-sexualization in Blizzard's games if you look at what they've produced as a whole, unless you happen to think this is somehow hyper-sexualized:
If he wanted a real debate, he would call a meeting maybe with more than one developer, you don't just go to a person that's probably with a lot other things in his mind and hope that he can give you a satisfying response in the moment.
Besides all these questions about sexism in the industry somehow manage to sound like accusations, that's annoying.
Besides all these questions about sexism in the industry somehow manage to sound like accusations, that's annoying.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
There's two things going on here. One is the evolution of progressive attitudes in this industry and in the way people within the industry come prepared to discuss their products, and one is the evolution of gaming journalism from overfunded fansites to something approaching actual journalism.
As observers, we have the luxury to stand back and to say we want the industry and gaming journalism to grow and change, but complain about the growing pains. We have the luxury of hypocrisy. Those both asking and answering these questions in public forums do not.
Browder is apologizing for the right thing here, which is that he was under-prepared for being prodded out of his comfort zone. "We're not running for President" is not a line that a coached professional would or should utter to a serious if tangential question. All that happened here was a bad day at work. On the flip side, RPS was simply testing boundaries in the direction they have cast their lot in for. All that happened here then was an ugly if successful day at work. Learning experience for both sides.
As observers, we have the luxury to stand back and to say we want the industry and gaming journalism to grow and change, but complain about the growing pains. We have the luxury of hypocrisy. Those both asking and answering these questions in public forums do not.
Browder is apologizing for the right thing here, which is that he was under-prepared for being prodded out of his comfort zone. "We're not running for President" is not a line that a coached professional would or should utter to a serious if tangential question. All that happened here was a bad day at work. On the flip side, RPS was simply testing boundaries in the direction they have cast their lot in for. All that happened here then was an ugly if successful day at work. Learning experience for both sides.
Except that's not what the character actually looks like at all in the game itself...
We can go round and round on this, but if that's not even what the character looks like then they are they releasing hyper-sexualized marketing material?