-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Dustin Browder apologizes for the RPS interview
- Thread starter Dawg
- Start date
Begging, whimpering, I sat in the waiting room and pleaded for the model sitting opposite me to stop. Don't put any more lipstick on I cried, as the tears streamed down my face. How could we have stooped so low? How could we have become so debased and how could we have lost our identity, the thing that keeps us human beings? I watched, as she sat there, drawing all over her face, removing what faint traces of natural femininity she had left. Gouging her once pristine, beautiful face with this sexist muck.
Oh god. Oh no. Not this. Anything but this.
Its RIMMEL STAY-MATTE FOUNDATION
Why. Why. WHYYYYYY
Deified Data
Banned
That's fair. I think there's definitely a line to be crossed when it comes to pushing an agenda in an interview. Usually asking a question and receiving a "no comment" is all the answer you need - there's no need to turn an interview into a "gotcha" moment. Save the editorializing for the post-interview write-up.
ColonelColon
Member
No, he should have stood his ground.
Moral Panic
Member
Not really.
Fine, criticizing the entire genre with the innocuous Roller Derby Nova as the link.
A Link to the Past
Banned
You're right. He should have just gave him a handjob and kept asking about how awesome his game is as opposed to conducting an interview like every other industry isn't afraid of doing
A Link to the Past
Banned
Left field suddenly means "talking about your game." Good to know!
Why is it that interviews in every other medium don't treat the subjects of the interviews as kings and queens, yet it's high sin to ever ask anything that doesn't involve selling a product in gaming?
Dustin Browder is John Goodman.
On the real, though, he's the lead designer of C&C: Red Alert 2, StarCraft II, and Heroes of the Storm.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
Somebody said they were waiting for TotalBiscuit's take, so here it is:
He misses the point that RPS was criticizing the alternate skin for Nova, primarily... but the fact that the Roller Derby Nova isn't overtly-sexualized makes it whatever.
TB's take sucks as per usual. Sarah Kerrigan got "sexed" up in SC2. Nova is a new character (iirc). I agree with his point about incompetence (looking at TB).
Totally think RPS is in the wrong and browder had nothing to apologize for.
Nova was created to be the protagonist of the cancelled StarCraft: Ghost over a decade ago, but she appeared as a cameo in StarCraft II. And she's definitely sexed up with the worst space-wedgie of all time:
(Old as fuck promotional art for StarCraft: Ghost)
staticneuron
Member
Really? Is that what happened with race relations in the US? I mean ever since Sidney Poitier wonderful role in 'Guess Who's Coming to Dinner ' in 1967 and other movies that show positive light on friendship between different races, race relations in america all but became positive overnight!
Just like with smoking, views on race relations, homosexuality, moral conflicts of all nature, movies have proven to show things that may not be accepted by society at large but never really has been a catalyst for change. The general tone of films and what is accepted tends to change after society fixes it's issues elsewhere and usually at a very slow pace.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I remember SC ghost, still a new character since that game never released
In any case, all the art designs are not 10 years old. I am certain TB's argument that them being created years ago is not relevant.
It's out of left field because it was only tangentially related to the game and quickly devolved into the interviewer pursuing the cause of his crusade.
The interviewee isn't a "king" or "queen" but they should at least be granted some relevant questions.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
I want to learn about the game, not about tiny social issues which essentially ignore the fact that the men are equally sexed up and "masculinized".
A Link to the Past
Banned
1. Oh, sorry - I forgot that video game media is developed with you in mind. I'm a real shit head for caring about things that you don't want.
2. Fuck off with that. That's the worst argument I ever see in this argument and has no basis whatsoever. Who is equally sexed up among men? Why should I assume that Ryu's design exists for women more so than anyone else? Being masculine is a power fantasy. Being feminine is not nearly so because there's no power in a video game associated with being sexy besides sex appeal. Do you honestly think that Cammy has a thong for the same reason why we can see Zangief's pectorals?
It's been said before but this isn't really a solution, or even the issue at hand. If men were being exploited as sexual objects for a female audience, then you'd have a case, but they aren't. Beefy dudes fit the male fantasy just like boobed-up, ass cleavage damsels.
The problem is that the interviewer is attacking this guy over a hopelessly benign example and projecting his views and assumptions where they don't fit.
I'd love to see someone go after the Crystal Dynamics guys who re-designed Lara Croft, or the LoL designers who shamelessly use cleavage and ass to make a quick buck off their audience with cosmetics. Square could be taken to task for Lightning in FF13-3 but girls generally approve of that design in Japan, it fits female ideals as much if not more than any male fantasy.
Why does it matter who a 25 year old character design was "existing for"?
Why do feminists assume males universally fantasize about being a roided up beefcake?
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
I'm just going to leave this here:
http://badassdigest.com/2013/11/14/we-need-to-change-how-we-talk-about-rape/
It's not directly related to this issue, and it's a long read, but it changed the way I view the larger issues surrounding things like women's rights and affirmative action.
Give it a look if you haven't. Even if you don't agree, hopefully it'll help you understand why people think these topics are worth pursing.
http://badassdigest.com/2013/11/14/we-need-to-change-how-we-talk-about-rape/
It's not directly related to this issue, and it's a long read, but it changed the way I view the larger issues surrounding things like women's rights and affirmative action.
Give it a look if you haven't. Even if you don't agree, hopefully it'll help you understand why people think these topics are worth pursing.
kiunchbb
www.dictionary.com
Games don't need to be a social utopia to be taken seriously, all it need is the money.
Why can't people see the difference between game and real life? Violent video games don't make people more violent and doesn't mean the developers are bunch of murderous lunatic. Why can't it be the same or every other issue? Just because it fit your agenda?
Why are you ONLY fighting for gender and race equality in game? What about the fair representation of age and weight? Religion and wealth? Every country in the world? People with disability? Political belief? After accomplishing all that, will game industry still exist?
Night Angel
Member
Holy shit. Are you always this caustic and dickish in arguments? You really don't seem to be a very pleasant person.
Jesus.
I don't think he owed anyone an apology. The interviewer asked his question at the wrong time, and chose to get on a soapbox instead of encouraging thoughtful discussion. The interviewer should apologize for being a shitty interviewer.
You heard it here first guys. Casual racism and sexism is okay because "it's just video games".
Man, this thread went fucking toxic from the point where I left my office. I'm done here.
Should've been first post.
A Link to the Past
Banned
It matters because the most bullshit statement is to assume that females are designed for females in gaming generally. Your statement fails if it's true that male characters are designed for males generally. If you don't think that this the case, show me.
By the way, I'm sorry that you apparently have to choose from only roided up beefcakes such as
Link
Kirby
Mario
Luigi
Wario
Red
Squall
Cloud
Zidane
Tidus
Vaan
Locke
Bartz
Cecil
Gordon Freeman
Sly Cooper
Nathan Drake
Simon Belmont
Marth
Roy
Ike
Eliwood
Abe
Alex Kidd
Sonic
Arthur
Little Mac
Olimar
Nico Bellic
C.J. Johnson
Tommy Vercetti
Crono
Jak
Daxter
Ratchet
Clank
Donkey Kong
Ezio
Fox McCloud
Ness
Lucas
Ninten
Larry Laffer
Guybrush Threepwood
Manny Calavera
Bernard
Sam
Max
Rayman
Harry Mason
Neku Sakuraba
Sora
Roxas
Sissel
Phoenix Wright
Apollo Justice
Soma Cruz
Trevor Belmont
Spyro
Crash
Travis Touchdown
Viewtiful Joe
Frank West
Mega Man
Zero
Lee Everett
Junpei
Sigma
That's quite the variety with which to choose. The problem isn't that a character is sexualized. The problem is that a certain type of character is sexualized more so than another. If you object to Marcus Fenix or any other dudebros, play almost any other kind of game. You will be hard-pressed to find a character that fits the arch type that you want. You will see a hell of a lot more "top women in gaming" than men because, like it or not, males have a much wider variety and as such it isn't exceptional that a male character can be good or unique.
To directly debunk your comparison, being a muscle-bound "hunk" is to be someone who is, in most kinds of games, the most capable and dependable character with which you can choose. Being a busty bombshell has no gameplay utility. There is no value from being a busty bombshell beyond "I like looking at it/looking like it." An industry dominated by men on both sides doesn't have to worry about so-called sexualization (which is only an issue when people want to tear down feminists' arguments, meaning that it's a cheap tool that no one - especially not the people using it - care about). This is not true for women. What does a woman have as an option when they don't want to be a damsel or eye candy?
Lowlander2
Banned
For as much as I hated RPS' redundant line of questioning, that "we aren't running for President" comment isn't much better. Here's hoping they've dug up their heads from the sand from now on.
You got on the wrong side of OutrageGAF. This is how they roll. They state opinions as moral facts, and when you disagree they attack and label you. Caustic and dickish is their MO.
Welcome to the party, pal!
A Link to the Past
Banned
Kind of like how people who send death threats to those who make a big deal over homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, etc. in video games are really caustic and dickish.
At least they're fighting the good fight right
TaroYamada
Member
You're amazingly rude, not just this post but your attitude in general.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Why shouldn't I be? Every time anything even remotely similar to this discussion happens, a particular side declares that the other side:
A. Is white knighting
B. Is only men
C. Is ignoring an entirely different problem
D. Just want to outrage
E. Want to ban free speech
F. Want everything to be homogenized or PC
G. Don't even really play games
H. Should just get over it
I. One or more of the above.
That shit is tiring, these discussions are tiring. The argument that a gender with a gigantic selection of different kinds of characters to choose from has it 'just as bad' is tiring. I'm getting tired of people shitting on any discussion like this because they don't like it, as if they are forced into it every single time.
That's a pretty nice list of it. You're not wrong.
Missed this part of the discussion last night and while I'm not sure if this is master trolling, I'd like to address Blizzard's take on the so called bikini chainmail armors:
I played WoW from vanilla to pandaland and their style on female armor is split into two different sides. Player armor is actually very nice and has a whiff of practicality. My nightelf tank would wear great, realistic platemail and only a few 'infamous' old pieces fell into the navel shirt/bikini plate category. When transmog came it became really apparent when people who wanted cheesecake would actually have to hunt for that stuff instead of finding it in modern wow armor graphics.
Now, on the other hand the Blizzard-created 'lore' characters are always about showing skin and tits. Alexstraza being the most obvious but not the only one. They really use those kind of character cynically in the marketing materials too.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
So, in just one post, you've managed to be sexist, abelist, nationalist, a conspiracy theorist, and classist.
You are a prick that very clearly has no idea what they are talking about, sir or madam.
Shoutout to Rez for the great article. Long, but worth sticking with.
Yup. People bitching about tone is merely the latest diversion propped up to avoid discussing the potentially uncomfortable culture warp we still very much grapple with in the west. Browder, to his credit, sucked it up and admitted he had brushed the topic off inappropriately.
Right, because no one on your side of the fence has ever leveled death threats or tried to have someone's life ruined over a difference of opinion. Gimme a break.
Either way it doesn't excuse your behavior and even the fact that you equate the two should give you pause.
You are right, people who don't agree with your opinion will most certainly be converted by your being an ass. It's kinda laughable how little some of you guys know about how conversations work. Didn't get the exact response you were looking for? Turn on asshole mode, that's sure to win people over!
It's almost like you all come from a generation that thinks the rest of the world should hang on every word you say, and gets frustrated when that doesn't happen. Oh wait...
fruiteater
Neo Member
I think most of all that the interviewer did a bad job, yes its legimate question and its a complex issue and browder was obviously not prepared for the question and yet he kept pressing the matter when it was obvious he wasnt prepared, he proabally never thought alot the issue so he anwsered poorly and he apologized for it, i dont think it was needed, but good move anyways.
Because conversion of explicit opposition is the only productive objective in a conversation? Where do you think we are, if not in a public space?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Yeah. I kind of gave up after literally dozens of conversations went to trash by people who didn't want to discuss it and didn't want anyone else to discuss it either. It doesn't look like anyone here is legitimately here to discuss the issue but rather to dismiss it outright, so I guess I was right to continue giving up on the opposing side.
People STILL have no idea what goes on inside World of Warcraft. You folks had 9 whole years. NINE WHOLE YEARS. All you needed to do is grab a 14 day trial, travel to the main cities, look for yourself what kind of an environment this game has regards to gender roles and "empowering/disempowering" males and females alike.
First of all, we can argue whether one practice is oversexualized or not. That is fair game. Luckily, the WOW armor sets are pretty much more than okay for the vast majority of the game progression, with a few exceptions (yes, exceptions) here and there.
But when it comes to empowering females? Is Sylvanas a weak character? A Damsel in distress? Doubt it. Is Jaina? Is Kerrigan? (For one third of the story, definitely, which is sad. Then, pretty much the opposite of that). But let us not bring SCII into this, cause that is worse than WoW in many ways.
My point is: it is weird to see WoW being grouped together with the likes of Aion, TERA and all the other F2P nonsense where you REALLY see those bikini armors shine. WoW is not a place like that. Stop pretending it is, and stop trying to bend reality to make it look like it is.
First of all, we can argue whether one practice is oversexualized or not. That is fair game. Luckily, the WOW armor sets are pretty much more than okay for the vast majority of the game progression, with a few exceptions (yes, exceptions) here and there.
But when it comes to empowering females? Is Sylvanas a weak character? A Damsel in distress? Doubt it. Is Jaina? Is Kerrigan? (For one third of the story, definitely, which is sad. Then, pretty much the opposite of that). But let us not bring SCII into this, cause that is worse than WoW in many ways.
My point is: it is weird to see WoW being grouped together with the likes of Aion, TERA and all the other F2P nonsense where you REALLY see those bikini armors shine. WoW is not a place like that. Stop pretending it is, and stop trying to bend reality to make it look like it is.
Yes, conversion (or at least partial conversion) of explicit opposition is the only productive objective for topics like this, otherwise what's the point? What else would it be, other than a pat on the back session where you could confirm your moral superiority? It's one or the other, otherwise there is no reason for these types of discussion. There is nothing productive in a conversation about social issues where everyone leaves feeling exactly how they felt going in. I have a feeling you already know this, which is why some of you get so frustrated and lash out when it's not working.
Parakeetman
No one wants a throne you've been sitting on!
Agreed, it is unfortunate since RPS usually does pretty good stuff. Do hope this is not the sign of things to come from them here on out...
Corporate apologies have always been worthless.
I usually enjoy Film Crit Hulk's writing, but this was a particularly incredible article. It put a lot of my views in perspective.
More than worth all the time spent reading it.
EDIT: Made a new thread about it in OT. Hope it goes well!
For holding such a blinkered point of view, one must stop to recognize the irony of your making so much hay out of others' alleged naivety about the nature of conversation. Attend to your own eye, brother.
You may think that there is nothing productive in arguing with someone with whom you have no chance of converting, but that is built on several presumptions: that we speak only to each other, that argument is a game that can be won over your opponent, and that the only gain to be found in arguing without conversion is some smug sense of moral superiority.
As I alluded to earlier, we are in a public space. Your words and mine spill into the ears of more than the two of us, and even if one were to arbitrarily restrict the scope of consideration to that number, there is no time limit on a point I make today having some effect down the road. Ditto anyone who reads the conversation and thinks on it themselves.
Further, what possible advantage would I glean to allow ideas I consider to be bad ones hold free reign and enjoy a consensus of mere numbers? I think it foolish to consider not having swayed my counterpart a greater inconvenience than that, and very much foolish too to consider not swaying a greater inconvenience than having failed to lend voices I agree with public support.
Imagine for a moment that these people you are arguing with are not these venal cartoons you hold in your head to deride. Their motives are far more diverse and subtle than you give them credit for, and doubtlessly not as naive as you flatter yourself in thinking. Food for thought. I'm sure someone will partake if you don't.
Dustin Browder is John Goodman.
On the real, though, he's the lead designer of C&C: Red Alert 2, StarCraft II, and Heroes of the Storm.
Don't forget he's the designer of Lord of The Rings: Battle for Middle-Earth as well. Never knew that until a while ago, makes him even better in my book.
TaroYamada
Member
Your suggestion that "it falls on ears outside our own" (paraphrasing) and could sway views in the future would make sense if this string of discussion hadn't started with you defending Snitch's handling of the topic. I personally doubt a significant number of people are going to be swayed by Snitch's arguments, when it appears they were written by somebody who is very emotionally invested and extremely angry.
In a debate, if you wish to sway anybodies view, it's generally best to portray yourself as calm. If you manage to remain calm yourself and infuriate your opponent than you've done wonders for your side of the argument. Not the other way around. It's also interesting to me how you appear to be attempting to swing into formal from informal (quoted below where you trot out "tone diversions") argumentation in this post.
Unfortunately however, in an actual debate, tone is a very valid critique. Any judge would dock rudeness and vice versa, reward civility.
Tone matters insofar that you care about looking persuasive to the other party in the argument, and even then, only so far. There is no amount of charm and ass-kissing that will make what you say any more or less true to them, nor make it more palatable to someone whose mind is concluded. And fuck calm, lucidity is what is imperative, the message is imperative. Calm is the virtue of milquetoast politicians and chiropractors.
We're not talking about a kindness to the court stenographer (that is, the ability to do his job).
But surely we should be capable of being mature and empathetic enough to consider things from the he viewpoint of the less well represented? Given how poorly aaa gaming represents, employs and caters to/for women and how dismissive and ignorant so many of the contributions to these sort of threads often are, isn't frustration entirely understandable?
As someone else said, if someone's standing on your foot and you ask them to move, they need to get of your fucking foot first, then you can worry about the tone of ongoing discourse. I'm a middle aged white native English speaker so I've never really encountered any form of negative prejudice, but I can imagine how it might make me feel.