Gaming Podcasts: A Thread about Listening to Others

[Londragon]

Anyone else have problems with this weeks NWR? I had dead audio in the middle and then the last 30 mins seemed to be a repeat of the middle of the podcast...?

 

Very excited after some of the positive things Syrene was saying about the console from a dev perspective. She really sold me on some of the features.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I had no problems, and I loved the positivism of Syrene. And such excellent insight into things Nintendo haven't talked about themselves. Well worth a listen.

[Hero-of-Time]

Following on from our discussion about the lack of quality control in gaming, and PSN/eShop/XBLA being packed with garbage, Jim Sterling just posted this today.

 

 

How is stuff like this being released? It's ridiculous.

[Hero-of-Time]

 

Brilliant piece by Colin. @Grazza you may like this. I know in the past you've spoken out about how game creators shouldn't be censored just because society doesn't agree with their vision.

[Grazza]

 

Brilliant piece by Colin. @Grazza you may like this. I know in the past you've spoken out about how game creators shouldn't be censored just because society doesn't agree with their vision.

 

It was an interesting watch, yes. I'm not totally against censorship, by the way, but am extremely opposed to it when it's politically motivated.

 

Colin was arguing in favour of developers being able to make mature games with serious points without backlash from an immature audience. I agree, but that's only half the story.

 

I am far more bothered by the feminism-led censorship of recent years, particularly when it leads to enforced alterations of outfits, designs and anything visual. Certain people have decided that their world view must be applied to everyone else, regardless of whether it's legal; regardless of whether there's a market for it.

 

Bikinis in Bravely Default, lingerie in Project Zero, poses in Overwatch and Street Fighter V. The list goes on... One of the most insidious things was the boob slider in Xenoblade Chronicles X, because here's the thing... you just know someone didn't want heterosexual males to have that, but would have been OK with women using it "legitimately". That's wrong. That's discrimination.

 

Dead of Alive Xtreme 3 is one of the most shocking examples, because it wasn't released at all. In this day and age, is Sony so controlled by these forces that they won't even let people download it from the PS Store?

 

Dragon Quest on 3DS was toned down in three ways:

* An act of cruelty

* An act of violence

* Several outfits

Now the cruelty and violence I can understand, because they wanted a lower rating, but the outfits are someone's politics.

 

 

In all of these examples there is one common theme - someone has decided the people who don't like it are more important than the people who do. Despite it being legal; despite people willing to pay money for it. I find that quite extraordinary.

 

I feel strongly that we now have a group of people who can't believe it when things don't go their own way. Look at the protests for Trump and the Leave vote. I am not saying either of these things were the right way forward (please, let's not get into it!), but if you look at the tantrums, it's like people are now so indoctrinated they can't believe it when the will of others is different to theirs. I've spent decades voting in elections - sometimes it's gone my way; sometimes it hasn't, but I always accepted democracy.

 

This liberal-left thinking has smothered games, films and TV, to the point where no one else has a choice. The Marvel films feature several topless male actors, whereas the female outfits are way, way toned down from the comics. No one protests - it's double standards. And you won't get another music video like Call On Me or Blurred Lines anytime soon despite them being perfectly legal.

 

 

In a truly fair world we would all have settings on our games consoles - violence, gore, sex, nudity, swearing - and everyone can choose what we do or don't see. Censorship should be reserved for the few cases where genuine harm could be caused. Bikinis and butt slaps do not fit the criteria.

[Hero-of-Time]

@Grazza cracking post and I agree with everything you said, especially your first paragraph in the spoiler tag. Many will probably disagree with you but it seems you and I have very similar views about such things.

[Grazza]

@Grazza cracking post and I agree with everything you said, especially your first paragraph in the spoiler tag. Many will probably disagree with you but it seems you and I have very similar views about such things.

 

Thanks H-o-T, I greatly appreciate that. You know, if you defend this type of thing, people can think the worst, but I feel very strongly about it. This is one thing I won't back down from.

 

Games journalists rallied against Jack Thompson when there was a political move to limit violence in games, but this...? Nothing. I understand that people don't want to make themselves look questionable, but to me it's an important subject.

 

It's good to defend serious games like Bioshock and The Last of Us, but to me, more light-hearted games are just as important because it encompasses fundamental aspects of storytelling, visual art and basic freedom. This political climate is actually making some of my favourite series quite bland.

[dan-likes-trees]

In all of these examples there is one common theme - someone has decided the people who don't like it are more important than the people who do. Despite it being legal; despite people willing to pay money for it. I find that quite extraordinary.

 

I feel strongly that we now have a group of people who can't believe it when things don't go their own way. Look at the protests for Trump and the Leave vote. I am not saying either of these things were the right way forward (please, let's not get into it!), but if you look at the tantrums, it's like people are now so indoctrinated they can't believe it when the will of others is different to theirs. I've spent decades voting in elections - sometimes it's gone my way; sometimes it hasn't, but I always accepted democracy.

 

Honestly man I can't believe you can be following the news this week and think that the two examples you cite equate in any way to the general elections in the past that 'sometimes have gone your way, sometimes haven't'. It's not that people have become 'so indoctrinated' that they're shocked by Trump and Brexit, it's that they're both genuinely massive political earthquakes in a way that general elections in the past 50 years haven't been. Regardless of whether or not you agree with Trump's overtly racist, sexist rhetoric, you can surely understand that the scale of people's reactions to it correlate with the historical magnitude of his election as a world event.

 

Brexit is obviously more nuanced, but again will have consequences, for better or for worse, far beyond that of a general election that rolls around every 4 years. Speaking as someone whose girlfriend of two years could well be kicked out of the UK following Brexit I find it pretty insulting that anyone protesting such a razor thin majority (following a campaign packed based on outright lies, by the way) could be described as 'having a tantrum' and 'not accepting democracy'. There are lives, families at stake with Brexit, and I have huge respect for anyone for continuing to express their views in the aftermath of a vote. The 'you lost, get over it' view that has surfaced after some of the last year's big votes is completely abhorrent to me, particularly as, in both cases, there are endless repercussions and further choices to be made in the aftermath, and the other 48% of either demographic shouldn't be ignored.

 

Back to games.. I don't broadly disagree but

 

I am far more bothered by the feminism-led censorship of recent years, particularly when it leads to enforced alterations of outfits, designs and anything visual. Certain people have decided that their world view must be applied to everyone else, regardless of whether it's legal; regardless of whether there's a market for it.

 

In a truly fair world we would all have settings on our games consoles - violence, gore, sex, nudity, swearing - and everyone can choose what we do or don't see. Censorship should be reserved for the few cases where genuine harm could be caused. Bikinis and butt slaps do not fit the criteria.

 

To me this is the opposite to what the Colin Was Right video was saying. The 'certain people' you describe are surely the game devs. If people at the top of the chain in studios are increasingly tending toward less sexualised depictions of women, then more power to them. There are certainly still a tonne of games out there where women are depicted in sexualised ways. Same goes for movies or music videos - Game of Thrones is one of the most popular TV shows of the last few years, for example. To my mind, moving to equality in the mainstream is always a positive, especially given the huge diversity of entertainment out there.

 

In a perfect world, developers should have the creative license to to shape their games how they want, not to provide sliders with settings for how their vision should be interpreted. That's how you'd have enough variety of experiences to please everyone, non?

[Grazza]

@dan\-likes\-trees

 

Regarding politics... you're right. Both are perilous situations. I haven't got enough room here to fully explain what I mean, so perhaps shouldn't have brought it up.

 

Whether or not to leave the EU was an extremely difficult question - a matter of principle vs practicality. The fact that immediately people started shouting "racist!" is part of the problem. For the record, I am totally in favour of it being in the hands of the Supreme Court and then Parliament, even if that means we don't actually leave. I'm not one of these "You lost, get over it" people.

 

Regarding Trump, I do follow the news. I'm concerned. But particularly with the "Women's Marches", it's like people are surprised that not every taxpayer supports abortion or feminism.

 

 

I hope we don't need to argue about that, because I am not the right-winger you might think.

 

To me this is the opposite to what the Colin Was Right video was saying.

 

Well, he was defending the rights of developers to promote liberal messages (as I do), but by the same logic you should support developers with less politically correct visions.

 

The 'certain people' you describe are surely the game devs. If people at the top of the chain in studios are increasingly tending toward less sexualised depictions of women, then more power to them. There are certainly still a tonne of games out there where women are depicted in sexualised ways.

 

That is in no way the full picture though. You don't factor in political pressure. The video I posted expressly stated that the creator of Dragon Quest X could not include a costume he wanted. We know feminists bullied companies that advertised in Nuts magazine and The Sun, causing the former to become non-viable and Page 3 in the latter to be dropped. We know they bullied the comet scientist with cartoon girls on his shirt. Did they protest against Magic Mike, though, or Thor taking his top off every film? It's not equality, it's double standards.

 

To my mind, moving to equality in the mainstream is always a positive, especially given the huge diversity of entertainment out there.

 

Equality is always positive, but I don't see a great deal of it. In Guardians of the Galaxy, why do we see Chris Pratt topless but not Zoe Saldana? Both are thrown into prison. There is a climate where it's OK to titillate women, but not men.

 

In a perfect world, developers should have the creative license to to shape their games how they want, not to provide sliders with settings for how their vision should be interpreted. That's how you'd have enough variety of experiences to please everyone, non?

 

Possibly, but in this case the option should be "censored or uncensored". With cases like Bravely Default, Project Zero, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Fire Emblem Fates, Tokyo Mirage Sessions and many others, we know for sure the games were censored in the West beyond what the creators intended. (And Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 not released at all.) Surely you agree it would be fairer to supply the games as intended, with the option to censor them if you wanted? It wouldn't even matter if the default was "censored", as long as you could change it.

 

But this won't happen, because people don't actually want protection for themselves; they want to stop other people enjoying things. I respect your intelligence, dan likes trees, but I think there is one thing you won't admit - that feminism is about control of others.

[dazzybee]

You think the worst thing about Trumps is the Womens marches and that feminism is about controlling others... fuck me sideways... Don't think this is the place to debate such topics, but I find them very troubling!

[Rummy]

Jeez c'mon dazzy - if you want to weigh in on the clearly very off-topic politics debate, at least throw something on topic in with it! I won't go into it - but I do believe Grazza's comments may have been over-interpreted slightly. I mean, I voted remain but still think we should respect the outcome in the same as Grazza says. I don't think that's be all and end all, and I also don't think anyone should be generalising a person as belonging to a group of people for expressing a single view or two. Whilst that's been heavily applicable to Brexit etc - it's something I also notice increasingly on the forums sometimes!

 

Coming back to the point - I echo both H-o-T and his agreement with Grazza's sentiments. Whilst I can understand censorship of skimpy outfits etc - I did find the boob slider removal in the character creation option a bit of a weird one. I can see and understand how or why it came about, but I think it's a bit short sighted and preposterous. It seems to be for, ironically given the above, a oversimplified generalisation of everyone using it for insidious/nefarious/pervy purposes. People have different boob sizes! If you're creating a character why not be able to adjust your figure?? I do think that in certain cases, the options should be given.

[bob]

Jeez c'mon dazzy - if you want to weigh in on the clearly very off-topic politics debate, at least throw something on topic in with it! I won't go into it - but I do believe Grazza's comments may have been over-interpreted slightly. I mean, I voted remain but still think we should respect the outcome in the same as Grazza says. I don't think that's be all and end all, and I also don't think anyone should be generalising a person as belonging to a group of people for expressing a single view or two. Whilst that's been heavily applicable to Brexit etc - it's something I also notice increasingly on the forums sometimes!

 

Coming back to the point - I echo both H-o-T and his agreement with Grazza's sentiments. Whilst I can understand censorship of skimpy outfits etc - I did find the boob slider removal in the character creation option a bit of a weird one. I can see and understand how or why it came about, but I think it's a bit short sighted and preposterous. It seems to be for, ironically given the above, a oversimplified generalisation of everyone using it for insidious/nefarious/pervy purposes. People have different boob sizes! If you're creating a character why not be able to adjust your figure?? I do think that in certain cases, the options should be given.

Did they also remove the ability to change male characters chest size?

[Rummy]

Did they also remove the ability to change male characters chest size?

 

I don't believe it was ever an option admittedly, though I'd say the variance there is much smaller compared to that of lady breasts :p

[bob]

Well then, that's parity I suppose.

[Rummy]

Well then, that's parity I suppose.

 

How though? You can have two women with rather similar physical builds but different breast sizes. That isn't so common in men though, is it?

[bob]

Well if they just deleted the chest size slider from both models, that'd be fine.

 

Inequality would be having it in one, but not the other.

[dan-likes-trees]

Jeez c'mon dazzy - if you want to weigh in on the clearly very off-topic politics debate, at least throw something on topic in with it! I won't go into it - but I do believe Grazza's comments may have been over-interpreted slightly. I mean, I voted remain but still think we should respect the outcome in the same as Grazza says. I don't think that's be all and end all, and I also don't think anyone should be generalising a person as belonging to a group of people for expressing a single view or two. Whilst that's been heavily applicable to Brexit etc - it's something I also notice increasingly on the forums sometimes!

 

Wasn’t suggesting Grazza is part of any generalised group of people; he clearly has pretty nuanced views on all this even if they’re views I don’t share (Ironically, you suggesting that I fit in with that forum trend is in itself a bit generalising). Regardless, his language he used fits in with a specific trend I noted; complaining of ‘tantrums’, suggesting people should ‘accept democracy’ is effectively the same as saying ‘you lost, get over it’, even if he’s since clarified that’s that’s not his view. Would like to add that I respect him for putting his views out there in a pretty thought out way; it's interesting debate!

 

Whether or not to leave the EU was an extremely difficult question - a matter of principle vs practicality. The fact that immediately people started shouting "racist!" is part of the problem. For the record, I am totally in favour of it being in the hands of the Supreme Court and then Parliament, even if that means we don't actually leave. I'm not one of these "You lost, get over it" people.

 

Regarding Trump, I do follow the news. I'm concerned. But particularly with the "Women's Marches", it's like people are surprised that not every taxpayer supports abortion or feminism.

 

I get and agree with your first point (I find the generalised accusations of racism equally reductive (with the cavieat that a small but sizeable portion of the votes were probably based on it!).

 

Even if he made his point in a slightly simplistic way, I agree with Dazzy that’s it’s a bit of a puzzling response to all of the events of the past week. People have a democratic right to protest, and as I said, the surprise you see is more to do with the volatile cocktail of orders, promises, tweets from Trump in the past week than any specific act; and the knock on effects they have more widely. The protests are as much about general defiance and support than specific protest.

 

That is in no way the full picture though. You don't factor in political pressure. The video I posted expressly stated that the creator of Dragon Quest X could not include a costume he wanted.

 

The point here is that the creator changes to his game to effectively get a U rating. He could have released the game as it was and gone for a higher rating. It’s not censorship, it’s a choice designed to boost sales, so it’s a marketing choice, not a choice made out of ‘political pressure’. If you want to work in the entertainment industry you’ll be aware of such limitations from the start, and base your game around it. I generally agree with censorship for products aimed at impressionable kids.

 

Well, he was defending the rights of developers to promote liberal messages (as I do), but by the same logic you should support developers with less politically correct visions.

 

Equality is always positive, but I don't see a great deal of it. In Guardians of the Galaxy, why do we see Chris Pratt topless but not Zoe Saldana? Both are thrown into prison. There is a climate where it's OK to titillate women, but not men.

 

These two quotes contradict themselves. I understand that you’re complaining about double standards, but you seem guilty of the some double standards yourself. I agree to an extent with your first point, but the fact is that the amount of popular entertainment that objectifies women still vastly outnumbers those that objectify men, which isn’t exactly an ideal cultural situation.

 

Possibly, but in this case the option should be "censored or uncensored". With cases like Bravely Default, Project Zero, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Fire Emblem Fates, Tokyo Mirage Sessions and many others, we know for sure the games were censored in the West beyond what the creators intended. (And Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 not released at all.) Surely you agree it would be fairer to supply the games as intended, with the option to censor them if you wanted? It wouldn't even matter if the default was "censored", as long as you could change it.

 

I have no background in those examples so I can’t go into specifics but, yeah, I guess I do generally agree, but again the point is that it would be fine if there was an equal amount of male objectification elsewhere in the culture, but (particularly in videogames) there isn’t; there’s still way more female objectification and little on the other side.

 

Ultimately it’s a combination of tonnes of factors around the marketing of those games and the different social values within different regional markets and companies that make these choices, which is, again, just capitalism doing it’s thing in huge multinational companies; putting changes down to ‘political pressure’ is a bit of an oversimplification to my mind.

 

I also feel like, more generally, that kind of stuff is a result of more games being made by more diverse and maturing developers, and for increasingly diverse and maturing audiences, as compared to twenty years ago when games were more largely made for and by young white men. So the way that games are updated for evolving markets is affected by that too.

 

In the UK we do pretty well for censorship (compared to say Australia, some Asian countries etc) so I find it hard to be bothered by having 2% less gratuity in certain games. Part of this is definitely personal taste; titilation is right down the bottom of my list for gaming prioritise, so if there’s a fraction less female nudity in games I’m fine with taking that hit as a side effect of incremental progress in society in general.

 

But this won't happen, because people don't actually want protection for themselves; they want to stop other people enjoying things. I respect your intelligence, dan likes trees, but I think there is one thing you won't admit - that feminism is about control of others.

 

The point I want to make most with all this is about your generalised use of the word ‘feminists’, and the repeated use of ‘they’ when getting into examples. I’d hope everyone on this forum considers themselves a feminist, ie, people who believe that women should have equal rights to men. You, it seems, have a problem with certain groups and certain views and actions of some feminists (I don’t always agree with every feminist either, and often those who shout the loudest aren't necessarily representative of wider views). So when you say feminism is about the control of others - that’s taking specific examples, behaviors, outcomes that you’re unhappy about and tarring feminism more generally with the same brush. It’s the same kind of generalisation that Rummy was highlighting on the other side of the debate.

Edited January 31, 2017 by dan-likes-trees

[bob]

Here you go.

 

In Conan: Exiles, they have a breast size slider, as well as a penis slider. Fun for all the family.

[Grazza]

Even if he made his point in a slightly simplistic way, I agree with Dazzy that’s it’s a bit of a puzzling response to all of the events of the past week. People have a democratic right to protest, and as I said, the surprise you see is more to do with the volatile cocktail of orders, promises, tweets from Trump in the past week than any specific act; and the knock on effects they have more widely. The protests are as much about general defiance and support than specific protest.

 

Maybe I can explain a bit more about why I brought up politics (hopefully without going into the specific politics too much). For many years there has been a sort of consensus that the liberal-left agenda is the only legitimate one - I don't say that to be inflammatory; it's just the best way to describe things - to the extent that we have not been able to solve problems by respectful debate. This, I believe, has led to situations that many consider extreme, such as the Leave vote or Trump's election.

 

Now cut across to Treehouse, sitting there localising games for Nintendo. It's clear many of them are feminist, and have swallowed the line about "objectification" (and that it's a bad thing). They then apply this to the games without any regard as to whether the buying public want it. I guess I'm equating democratic voting to free market economics.

 

We can apply a theoretical test to this. If Nintendo had supplied two versions - censored and uncensored - of Project Zero, Xenoblade Chronicles X and Tokyo Mirage Sessions, I think anyone honest would admit that the uncensored ones would outsell the censored many times over. Now I concede that not enough people feel passionate enough about it to make a difference, but I think what I've said there is true.

 

This is what I mean by spending power (democracy) having no value in this regard.

 

The point here is that the creator changes to his game to effectively get a U rating. He could have released the game as it was and gone for a higher rating. It’s not censorship, it’s a choice designed to boost sales, so it’s a marketing choice, not a choice made out of ‘political pressure’. If you want to work in the entertainment industry you’ll be aware of such limitations from the start, and base your game around it. I generally agree with censorship for products aimed at impressionable kids.

 

I can't disagree with this. It was quite a weak argument of mine, to be honest, but I don't think we can discount the political pressure applied to Japan in recent years (reflected in the ratings board). As I say, I don't disagree with the violence and cruelty being cut out, but I believe the criteria for costumes has actually changed. Ultimately though, I admit this is Japan's business. Incidentally, PEGI is absolutely fantastic with ratings - I support them wholeheartedly.

 

These two quotes contradict themselves. I understand that you’re complaining about double standards, but you seem guilty of the some double standards yourself. I agree to an extent with your first point, but the fact is that the amount of popular entertainment that objectifies women still vastly outnumbers those that objectify men, which isn’t exactly an ideal cultural situation.

 

You've got me there, but I do support things that only feature male nudity (as such). I'm more pointing out the cultural double standard. For years I've been passing adverts for male strippers at the leisure centre, yet we know a female equivalent would never be allowed.

 

I don't agree with your second point, though, about there being much more popular entertainment that objectifies women. I think it's extremely difficult to see anything like that in the mainstream now.

 

I have no background in those examples so I can’t go into specifics but, yeah, I guess I do generally agree, but again the point is that it would be fine if there was an equal amount of male objectification elsewhere in the culture, but (particularly in videogames) there isn’t; there’s still way more female objectification and little on the other side.

 

In video games, perhaps. But we do see topless male characters in many games, and shouldn't assume no one finds it sexual (it doesn't matter to me whether they do or don't, because I think we should judge things on what they are, not what might be going on in someone's head). Ultimately, artists have always been drawn to the nude, especially the female nude. Even if I was gay, I think I would still love the female nude. To me it's the most natural thing in the world that RPG makers would work towards a skimpy bikini as the sort of "ultimate" costume for a female.

 

In the UK we do pretty well for censorship (compared to say Australia, some Asian countries etc) so I find it hard to be bothered by having 2% less gratuity in certain games. Part of this is definitely personal taste; titilation is right down the bottom of my list for gaming prioritise, so if there’s a fraction less female nudity in games I’m fine with taking that hit as a side effect of incremental progress in society in general.

 

I don't play games for titillation, but it annoys me when that's taken off the menu. If you said you played games for violence, that would sound pretty sick in itself, but it's a legitimate part of a game. Developers should have a diverse palette and be able to include dramatic scenes, comedic scenes, erotic scenes... the problem is that the latter is so much more difficult than the others.

 

As for the other point, I personally don't feel it's progress, but we're not going to agree about that.

 

The point I want to make most with all this is about your generalised use of the word ‘feminists’, and the repeated use of ‘they’ when getting into examples. I’d hope everyone on this forum considers themselves a feminist, ie, people who believe that women should have equal rights to men. You, it seems, have a problem with certain groups and certain views and actions of some feminists (I don’t always agree with every feminist either, and often those who shout the loudest aren't necessarily representative of wider views). So when you say feminism is about the control of others - that’s taking specific examples, behaviors, outcomes that you’re unhappy about and tarring feminism more generally with the same brush. It’s the same kind of generalisation that Rummy was highlighting on the other side of the debate.

 

You're right, I do generalise about feminists, and I've been thinking over the past few days whether this is reasonable or not. My conclusion is that whilst I wouldn't generalise about someone's gender, race or sexual orientation, I feel it's somewhat fair to about a political movement. My reasoning is that although I believe the vast majority of feminists are decent men and women, they are ultimately supporting something that, at the top, is extreme. It is my personal belief that ideas like "objectification" have been fed through to the public without any real thought as to what they mean or where it'll lead. The public take it on, believing they are supporting "equality", but ultimately are supporting the world view of a handful of puppet masters.

 

This is another thing we're not going to agree on (and is more like a topic for the General Board), but thanks, dan-likes-trees for being respectful and putting a lot of thought into your arguments.

 

Incidentally, I love trees too.

[dan-likes-trees]

This is another thing we're not going to agree on (and is more like a topic for the General Board), but thanks, dan-likes-trees for being respectful and putting a lot of thought into your arguments.[/color]

 

Absolutely man. Much respect for laying out your thoughts in such a considered way; this kind of debate is alway healthy & interesting even when it strays a little off-topic, to my mind. We definitely have pretty similar thoughts on a lot of these points, even if as you say we'll always disagree on some of the big ones! This paragraph in particular is something I thought considered in that way.

 

Ultimately, artists have always been drawn to the nude, especially the female nude. Even if I was gay, I think I would still love the female nude. To me it's the most natural thing in the world that RPG makers would work towards a skimpy bikini as the sort of "ultimate" costume for a female.

 

I'll refrain from getting into the other points in full (some of which I agree & disagree with) before the rabbit hole gets any deeper, but a couple of final bits I'd like to respond to

 

Re - 'For many years there has been a sort of consensus that the liberal-left agenda is the only legitimate one' - Certainly a valid point and your point about Trump etc being a response to that is fair, but we're still in a world in which, in the UK at least, the vast majority of news outlets lean varying degrees to the right (The Mail is the UK's best selling rag!), & the vast degree of the population vote to the right, with only the Mirror and The Guardian (+ arguably the BBC) being the main liberal mouthpieces left. I would agree that that's the case with the entertainment industry, though I'd say that's more to do with creative-types having a tendancy toward liberal views and values; an industry packed with such people are bound to produce entertainment with a liberal leaning (Not to say that's always a good thing). So I'm not sure the consensus on a 'liberal-left agenda' applies to society more generally.

 

My conclusion is that whilst I wouldn't generalise about someone's gender, race or sexual orientation, I feel it's somewhat fair to about a political movement. My reasoning is that although I believe the vast majority of feminists are decent men and women, they are ultimately supporting something that, at the top, is extreme.

 

Perhaps repeating myself, but I would stress that I don't consider this the case; the vast majority of feminists purely support the concept of equality for women, not the suppression of forms of culture, and find extreme instances of feminism to be sometimes irritating and counter-productive. I get your thinking and I agree that it's muddy; how do you define a general political ideology, and who actually, ultimately represents it? It's a similar issue to Brexit thing from earlier; the official Vote Leave leave campaign was a based around a wholly different set of beliefs and values from Farage's UKIP-led unofficial leave campaign, yet people still lump them all together and, as you said, call racist on the basis of the views of the most vocal. I'm not going to stop calling myself a feminist because I sometimes disagree with the actions of some of the most vocal and extreme feminists, just as any right winger shouldn't be discouraged from expressing their views for fear of being seen as a racist / sexist or whatever else.

 

Incidentally, I love trees too.

 

Ha, something we can definitely both agree on!

[Nicktendo]

This week's Colin Was Right is bang on the money and certainly touches on the eloquently discussed issues above. Well worth checking out if you have twenty minutes to spare.

 

Sorry no link, YouTube is blocked at work.

[bob]

This week's Colin Was Right is bang on the money.

 

Well obviously. Otherwise it'd be called Colin Was Wrong.

[Nicktendo]

Well obviously. Otherwise it'd be called Colin Was Wrong.

Haha Colin is definitely not always right but this week's show is really well researched and he's a credit gaming journalism when he provides such excellent in-depth analysis on difficult issues.

[Hero-of-Time]

I see Colin is leaving Kinda Funny Games and i'm absolutely gutted. I've been a fan of his banter since his Beyond days over on IGN and seeing him step away from the industry has left me feeling pretty bummed out.

 

Kinda Funny is going to have a hard time replacing him and i'll probably stop watching/listening to their Playstation podcast. While Greg and Tim are fine hosts and have some good stuff to say, neither of them are a patch on Colin when it comes to general gaming knowledge.

 

Most of Neogaf are loving this news. Many on there hate Colin purely because of his political views. One of the reasons why he started Colin Was Right was to give more insight into the industry and give something more back to the fans. Needless to say that his shows were still met with a lot of hate on Gaf. I imagine him stepping away from gaming has a lot to do with the hassle they have been giving him over the past year.

[Happenstance]

I never watched or listened to any of his stuff but the stuff that seemed to pop up from or about him from time to time never made me want to give it a try. I think this would make me more likely to watch Kinda Funny stuff now.

[Hero-of-Time]

Jim speaks about the weapon breaking system in Zelda and the idiotic actions of the Zelda/Nintendo fanboys that took down his website.

 

 

for the Raccoons tune at the end.