The Funomena co-founder and Journey producer explains how traditional labelling is out-dated, and why the gaming industry needs to highlight genuine innovation.
No. Go away.
I read nothing from Vice. They are a propaganda network outside of video games so I have no reason they would be impartial here.
I've never seen an article use such nebulous language before, and based on that, this article really has told the public nothing.
Was about to click on the article link. Then I saw it was Vice. I'd rather have diarrhea. Same can be said about Polygon.
Create examples. You want to change how things are done viable market examples have to be made. Restricting choice and creativity under the guise "diverse terminology" will only lower standards and shrink the market. Guessing ideological "items" like this are getting approved because everyone voted for GG articles without realizing that GG has moved on. Is done with the overall argument while the anti-GG still hold media favor and insist the label belongs to terrorist and racist.
Where in the article does it mention GG or absolutely anything to do with it?
This is the exact kind of article, asking for community support among what are suppose to be professional journalist, that created GG.
She has created examples, and to my knowledge, none of those examples are part of any kind of agenda which seeks to restrict choice or creativity under the guise of diverse terminology. Quite the opposite really. All she's saying is that developers and publishers should look beyond the sales numbers, and seek innovation in new ways. In no way is she saying or dictating what it is they should create. It's not wrong to ask for community support, or even the support of the media to think more about highlighting innovative and creative products that could be of interest to gamers, and help sew the seeds of more creative game design. At no point in your comment did you actually address anything that was in this article, or even attempt at analyzing or even countering her actual request. I know the article itself is poorly written, and summarizes what it is she's trying to do, but it seems like you didn't even read the article, and instantly jumped to some forgone conclusion that this is about some topical agenda driven subject that we routinely see on here. To go off on a side rant This....right above...is how the SJW/feminist movement is hurting the game industry and setting back feminism as a whole. Not that they're taking our games away, although that's bad for us. But that they have put gamers on such a defensive stance, that the first thing many jump to is that she is seeking some sort of representative reform that somehow only benefits one party. This rather influential, and talented designer/producer, is lumped into the lowest of the low, and everything she has to talk about is disregarded without a second thought. Sadly though, those that are jumping to the conclusion are to blame here for doing the wrong thing, but it's human nature to be conditioned to automatically come to a conclusion based on what we've come to expect, which is where the SJW/feminists are to blame. Edit: BTW, the stuff in there about "women" was the author. It didn't seem like anything that could possibly be pulled from what Hunicke said...at least based on what the article provided. If that was the basis of your comment...then half of what I said I apologize for. I also understand why you may jump to a conclusion based on the site itself.
Yeah, thing is as a developer her job isn't to promote the games of other devs but to promote and especially make her own games. And by what I've read she largely asking reviewers as a community to support tiles of a specific ilk, which could be read the same as asking to downplay others. Games like Papers Please or Journey didn't need wide spread acclaim, though by Journey's studio going bankrupt they could have used better access, but then there are the -one about the black cleaning woman in South America?- which don't but that didn't stop those devs from trying to "appeal" to only reviewers and blame the game community for not buying it. And yes, as far as I'm concerned, that's what she's asking for. Also yes, didn't read the article the first time, and it only feels like a waste to read it now so as to be honest.
It's hard to really know to what lengths she's asking the media to cover such games. Almost the entire article was more summary than direct quotes, and then it devolved into some agenda driven hyperbole on the part of the author at the end, which I didn't feel was in any way related to what hinicke was talking about. I've seen hunicke speak before though, and her thing has always been about inspiring and pushing creative and innovative development processes in general, and I never really thought she was of the mind that a game that happens to be different for difference sake should be raised up as an example if it wasn't actually something that people felt wasn't worthy of such a thing. I've also seen her say that raising up [bad] games just because they offer something different isn't the right way to do things either, because it's more of a set back to those who are trying to make good games. I don't recall her citing specific examples of bad games though....so your interpretation could have some merit. All that being said, this article is mostly a waste. I covered what I felt she was trying to say, and the only quote given doesn't even seem to be that relevant to what the author is summarizing. I might try to find an actual interview or something where all this came from which could be better....but I'll probably forget come morning.:)
So though you agree that the article itself is bad, you're not seeing the issue with Hunicke trying to persuade the review community to be collectively bias rather than fellow devs to be experimental? If that's what she instead of the author of the article wants. At the very least you should understand how the author's bias effects what she's trying to say. Nevermind that because how such issues came to light a legitimate conversation is nigh impossible.
I don't take issue with anyone asking for innovative good games be given consideration in the media. If that's all she's asking for, then that's fine. I'd prefer that over the focus on bad games which get focus because they happen to be agenda driven. I feel in this case that perhaps it may be hard to separate how much is hunicke's ideals and how much is the authors bias.
* They aren't even trying to hide their agenda which is basically " I don't participate in this thing, but I want to control the people that do and how they get to experience it" = Control pervert
Of course she can't do it alone. Her and her ilk always need some useful idiots to do the dirty work they consider themselves too enlightened and educated for.
You numpties above do realise she's talking about being more savvy about getting attention for games which don't fall into the typical genres like fps, tps, etc. She's talking about indie games like papers, please and games like Katamari Damacy. Games which are hard to describe using traditional methods. But, hey, it's on Vice and there's a Womans' picture at the top...
There's a word for calling attention to games , it's called marketing. Why does it need a spotlight article?
" Guys that hold all the keys " Well... no. If the audience talks with their wallets you're maybe going to see where things go wrong in this industry.Not all of this political hierarchy and gender equality. Gamers don't play games like that,even more so how does being an independent developer prohibit anyone from entering a market?.What keys?... and w/e you do leave Sarkeesian out of it.The games she promotes are crap.
The biggest issue I see isn't with the "guys that hold all the keys", or that there aren't enough women in key positions, or anything of that nature. It's more that the idea of the female market is mostly a foreign one when it comes to AAA game design. Sometimes that design is meant to appeal to any gender, sometimes it's targeted at specific genders. But the examples of AAA games which sell well to the female audience, are nowhere near what we on here consider to be the kind of games we want to play. But the problem is, is that it's foreign because there has never been any evidence that the AAA market seeks out games which have more diversity, or that any diversity included has had any affect whatsoever on sales themselves. Venturing totally off track and trying to make a AAA game which is targeted solely at a market which is unproven just isn't going to happen, because the risks are too great, and the publishers know what the make up of that "almost 50% of gamers are women" is, and what kind of games they're playing. But what I see is people like Sarkeesian, or many of the SJW crowd, behaving like the current AAA market could be a hugely viable market if they made their games to be more inclusive, or remove things which are considered offensive to a particular group....and of course, they think this whole group thinks the way they do about such topics, thus the industry itself is giving up this huge market which they claim exists. However, again, there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim beyond hyperbole....and $100+ million dollar game budgets don't get funded through hyperbole. Sarkeesian and SJW go on and on about how the new TR games show an example of a strong woman, and that it would appeal to a huge female player base, but as of yet, no evidence actually suggest that despite this apparently strong representation of women in the game, that it had any affect on sales, or in any way brought more people in to play it. If anything, it sold about what I'd expect it to for the name recognition of the franchise, the fact it was something fresh and new in the series, and it had a 50 million dollar marketing campaign behind it. And that last part is the key part. It didn't sell well because it had a strong female lead, it sold well because it had a huge marketing budget. A game like Gone Home would sell millions of copies if it had a 50 million dollar marketing budget. Worse, there seems to be little tolerance for accepting that the other markets that exist, or even have the right to exist. Whereas I personally would welcome any attempt to have great, creative games targeted at women, or a much wider diversity of groups in general, and just allow everyone to enjoy what it is they want to enjoy. Or better yet, see games made that appeal to everyone. But at no time would I think other games I have no interest in, or I might somehow find offensive should never be made, and should be criticized so heavily that publishers feel the social pressure to adapt their game designs to my ideals. So, to make this all relevant to your comment....yes, the audience talks with their wallets. They talk with their comments. They say what they want, and buy what they want. I doubt things would go wrong in the industry should publishers start to approach other markets. I think they'd test the waters first, and if those games fail, it'll be the end of it all until someone finds that perfect formula which draws people in. From my own experience though, the people that like AAA games, seem to be tolerant enough to ignore the games they don't care about, play the games they like, and don't care one iota if some other games doesn't represent them well. This is true of the women I know that play AAA games as well.
The thing is, I think innovation is usually incredibly well received by the gaming world, provided the idea is executed well. Look at Minecraft, and how different an approach that took compared to games that were on the market. Same thing with the Souls series, which did the opposite of what was expected with ideas that other devs would be scared to do, and became a juggernaut of a series. Look at the hype for No Man's Sky. Look at the hype for VR gaming. Look at Portal, and how much of a craze that was. Look at the recent resurgence of adventure games like Life is Strange, Until Dawn, Heavy Rain and all the Telltale games. Look at the recent boon of so-called "walking simulators." Look at Pokemon Go! Just because so many low-budget and "different" indie games of middling quality get ignored all the time doesn't mean innovation and alternative gaming ideas don't get recognised. It just means that being "different" or "new" isn't enough to be considered "good."
While I agree with you, there are other games which are just as innovative which get very little recognition, or even mentions in the press and aren't given much regard by the community. People keep saying they want innovation, but then that innovation is often criticized as being "indie" or just chalked up to something crap, or even disregarded in the bigger titles should they happen to be some exclusive, or sometimes even in multi-plats they go completely unmentioned because there is no war to wage. I don't really feel what she's asking for is unreasonable, since she doesn't really seem to be demanding it, but rather suggesting others maybe consider it, and gives a reason that it could have a cascading effect to show publishers there is more to gaming than just making something using the rather standard and homogenized game formula. And I don't really feel she's implying that "different and new" is supposed to be considered good, rather that what is different and new should be looked at in how it can be made into something good for the improvement of games as a whole. Unfortunately, there weren't enough direct quotes in the article to really be able to tell what exactly it is she is trying to get at, but the summary seems to be more about staying creative, and that people recognize creativity when it comes about. Anyhow, kudos on the great examples you cite.
My god. It's unbelievable how many people here are jumping to the wrong conclusion about what it is she's asking for. I understand the inclination to think every woman is out to change the games we play, but what this woman is asking for is the same thing we keep saying we want on here on a daily basis. That's innovation, new fresh ideas, and the media and gamers to actually start giving recognition to those things which give gamers something new. I'd be with every one of you the second someone comes in and tries to say that we're all misogynist pigs and gaming is a boys club or whatever. But this time, almost everyone in this thread at the time I write this is actually showing themselves to behave exactly like we get criticized for behaving. Unbelievable. If you want your opinion to mean something, then at least make your opinion relevant to the topic at hand.
O really? I do not care who makes the games and definitely not buying games because women are being " sexualized " in games.They're mixing " innovation " with women not having the same positions in gaming. Leave that latter out of it and you'll have nobody responding to it.This is purposely mixing progressive outcomes with political ideologies.It is very relevant as an opinion.
If people want to criticize the author for turning it into some political thing, then that's fine. But I see people acting like the person the author is talking about is trying to make the same political statement, and that's not the case. The criticism I have is that people are addressing the wrong topic here, and automatically jumping to the conclusion that hunicke is talking about what you're talking about, when that's not the case, and it serves no purpose but to make all of us look like we're exactly what we're accused of being by this fringe group in our community.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.