Addicted to controversy

For those of you coming on the internet for the first time in over a year, first off, I'm really flattered that you read my blog first. That means a lot to me. Secondly, I should fill you in that gaming has "come under fire" some might say, with accusations of sexism, left and right.

Most recently, this has happened with "Dragon's Crown," which features a character that is rather ludicrously well-endowed. Lulu from FFX would say "damn girl, don't those hurt your back?" She wouldn't be allowed in Dead or Alive Extreme, because they wouldn't have a swimsuit her size. Noel from Blazblue would just shoot herself at the sight of her. The characters from Eiken would... actually no, never mind. It still isn't as bad as Eiken. (to any of my family reading this, for God's sake, do NOT look up Eiken)

It's not strange that the game drew controversy, what has been strange - and I'd say very depressing - is that gamers, even those that support the game, seem to be dragging the controversy around with them. Gamers have put it on a pedestal as some testament to free speech. It's become a flag carried into battle against the "feminazis" and actually typing that word out made me want to castrate myself as penance. The irony is that some people DEFENDING it talk about the game as if the breasts are all there is to it. I see hardly any discussion about the game, I just see "screw the people who are mad about the big boobs."

My point is I think some of us have become addicted to controversy.

I don't think Vanillaware intended to have Dragon's Crown be anything more than a fun throwback to arcade beat-'em-ups. And I wish we, as gamers, can just let it be that. We KNOW that the game's detractors have no power to change the game, and we've seen similar controversies enough to know the people behind the game won't change it to suit the tastes of people who don't like it. So why do we keep picking fights with people who are turned off by the art style? If we keep acting defensive about it, it just makes us look worse in the long run. We should just let the game be what it is. The lead artist himself testified that the exaggerated proportions were just their way of making an otherwise by-the-numbers fantasy game stand out. They're not making a statement or anything.

You may point to God of War's "Bros before Hoes" controversy as a time when the critics "won" when the trophy's name was changed, and that we need to be on our guard because "where do they draw the line?" and stuff. To that, I say they didn't really change anything about the game, and if the line isn't clear, it's still a long ways from actually changing the content. When you get a trophy, it can be viewed by anyone on your friend's list. Maybe some of them don't want to be exposed to objectionable content because of something you're playing. Did using the word "hoe," which maybe isn't a swear word but certainly is derogatory, add anything at all to God of War? In a trophy, no less? You ask me, it's the same as an MMO censoring swear words in chat.

While we're on the subject, stop getting mad at developers and publishers apologizing when these controversies happen. Partially because it's almost always an "I'm sorry you were offended" kind of apology which is not even an apology at all. Also because sometimes the bad PR just isn't worth it. Sony wasn't censoring Michelangelo's David, they were changing a stupid trophy name that the guy who wrote it probably didn't even care about. It was unnecessary, easy to remove, and probably offended more people than it entertained. It was the artistic equivalent of removing the truck nuts from your bumper.

Now, I'm seeing this happen with the game Killer is Dead. Ever since it became known the game has "gigolo missions" in which the player seduces one of a number of women, that's all I've seen brought up about it. And people are cheering it on like "Suda51's stickin' it to the PC police!" when he really just doesn't care either. It really hit me when Senran Kagura Bust- er, Burst - was announced for localization, and people were honestly drawing comparison between KiD and a game that's blatantly about fan service first and foremost, as if the gigolo missions were the entire game. C'mon, this is Suda51 we're talking about, and this looks like his most surreal game in half a decade. Where's the talk of the crazy boss fights and nonsensical mechanics? The main character has a freaking mega buster for crying out loud! Tell me what's up with that!

And remember Lollipop Chainsaw by the same studio? People talk about it in shameful whispers like it's a porn game, all because of a cosplay scandal and the small number of critics who had their feathers ruffled. But it's actually very tame in that regard, save for a few skimpy unlockable outfits. It's just a goofy, funny beat-em'-up with some raunchy humor and a bit of eye candy. Why do we treat it like anything more?

And it's not just sex stuff either. This kind of thing is what killed my enjoyment of the Devil may Cry reboot. It wasn't about if DmC was fun, it was about how it measured up to the old games, and whether or not the haters were right. And now Ninja Theory - by all rights one of the best new developers of this generation - get to carry that stigma around even when they make something different. Their next game could be a visual novel about the life of a rice farmer, and the comments would STILL be cluttered with arguments about DmC.

And journalists are part of the problem. I know a lot of people call "hit-baiting" on articles that complain about sexism. But, complaining about complaints about sexism is just as juicy an article for getting hits. And even complaining about complaints about complaints about sexism, which is what I'm doing right now, can get a ton of hits. (Though I at least have the integrity to not use a sexy picture to draw in more people) What's honest and what will get more hits? "Dragon's Crown is a Great Game," or "Dragon's Crown is a Great Game, Despite Controversial Art?" I can't think of a news outlet that wouldn't go with the latter when posting to a site like ours.

I'm not advocating silence in these controversies. If a politician wants to ban a game, speak up. Keep giving Australia crap for refusing games classification. If a prominent critic is just plain getting their facts wrong, call them out. But if someone is a little put off by the art style, or, God forbid, wants to talk about games doing a poor job representing women, you don't have to rally the whole anti-censorship brigade. You're not obligated to immediately rush to the defense of smut, either, beyond the point that it has a right to exist. (but I look forward to serious plot and character analyses of Senran Kagura) Speak your mind, just don't be so damn insecure. Frankly, at this point, it looks like we're just trying to silence people who disagree with us. Dammit! I wish there was a word for that kind of thing!

Thanks for reading! And I hoped you like that "Senran Kagura Bust" joke, because I intend to run it into the ground like an EA franchise.

[dedicatedtogamers]

I think some people (myself included) get tired of the contrived, artificial "outrage" that certain sites (specifically Kotaku, Polygon, and Rock Paper Shotgun, to name a few) utilize in order to drive ad revenue. It comes off as Babby's Firzt Feminism and it's annoying. It should be annoying to any adult who has lived in the real world and had real interactions with real people. So, when these controversies inevitably appear out of thin air, some people want all parties involved to just shut up. People talk about the controversy because that's what is interesting.

Additionally, the "game journalism" industry is horribly, horribly corrupt, broken, and flaccid. Credibility is at an all-time low. I think we actually need to have MORE complaining, not less, and then follow it up by simply not going to that site (you know, the notion of "practice what you preach"). Some people carry around that controversy because tomorrow, and the day after, and the next day such-and-such site is going to write a different article, and we should be judging the credibility of these websites before believing everything they type *cough*recentDigitalFoundryart icles*cough*

This is the internet. Gamers like to talk about the game industry as a whole, not just games, and the "sexism debate" surrounding Dragon's Crown is far more interesting to most people instead of the gameplay, which comes from an era that most of these gamers are too young to remember anyway.

[admiralvic]

I agree with a lot of this and really wish people would stop complaining about the low standards / quality of the game journalists and do something about them.

After being one for 2 and a half years, I really started to learn what the reality of everything is and it's extremely depressing. Like I know two of the sites that gave Dragon's Crown a 9+ score had little experience with the game. One of the sites had a review based off 1 character and she was unable to beat the game (I think she moved onto Saint's Row IV, so that won't change anytime soon). Another reviewer beat the game, but only really played as the Wizard, yet still felt the need to give the game a 9.6. Like I don't mind if people want to praise of hate something, but people shouldn't instantly go "another great score", but question if the score has any sort of merit behind it. That's the great thing about trophies / achievements. You can tell how much a person has played the game by seeing what they have and don't have.

Anyway, these articles won't go away till people ignore them or push to get the people who write them to leave. I think we can all do without another Female trope video or silly outrage like Bros before hoes.

[dedicatedtogamers]

Indeed. I think what is needed is a form of accountability and some basic info that is included across all reviews. Sometimes I feel like a reviewer is more in love with their own writing style than the games they're playing.

Some really basic stuff:
- how long did the reviewer play the game before printing the review?
- how long did it take to beat? how much side-questing did you do? did you continue playing after you beat it?
- any slowdowns, glitches, crashes, lag, or other types of technical hang-ups?
- how is the control scheme? (the only time I can remember reviewers talking about controls in a AAA title is for Killzone 2 when everyone marked it down for "sluggish controls")

I think these are some really basic questions that shouldn't be too hard to answer...that is, if our esteemed journalists are being honest with us.

[admiralvic]

I think a lot of it has to do with status and ego (is this what you meant by writing style?), than anything else. I know the EiC of the site I use to write for was telling me how he couldn't make deadlines if he actually beat every game he played and when I suggested he do fewer reviews of greater quality, he just told me to go... myself.

I think a lot of this has to do with people stroking their egos and the utter lack of responsibility to do their job right. Like I had inFAMOUS 2 before release (got lucky and found it on sale at Target, so no embargo for me) and you feel like the coolest person on the whole site when you have information / knowledge that no one else has. Even then, most people take whatever they say at face value if the scores match the average or meet their expectations.

That's sort of the people with people who complain. They're only willing to look for things when they disagree with some minor aspect. Recently I was saying why I disagreed with a lot of Dragon's Crown reviews and got nothing but disagrees / hate from people across the board. Not only did they refuse to accept that some people had a different opinion, it seems like some people are willing to write off flaws that would KILL a lesser game.

Like DC lacks cross-play, cross-buy, is only about 4 hours long if you rush it, no voice chat (or no one could figure it out), no way to simply search / host a game online (might have been fixed in a Japanese patch that came out / in the future, but that shouldn't excuse reviewers unless they review a version with that stuff), AI is extremely stupid, etc. Yet most people will say things like...

Cross-play isn't possible, so it's not their fault. It's a great game, buy it twice or get the version you want. Every game is short if you rush it. Talk on Skype / Vita party if it means that much to you. That will be fixed in a patch I'm sure. AI is always stupid and a future patch might fix it, so stop hating. Yet if this was a lesser developer people would be praising what I said because they don't want it to succeed as much.

[SeraphimBlade]

Actually, I have a question in regards to what DTG said: Does posting a comment, even if you don't click the article's source, drive up the article's "heat" here?

My gut says yes, and I see a ton of "I'm not even giving them the hits" comments on certain articles, which would then draw more attention to the article, thus giving them the hits. Even if that's not the case, seeing a ton of comments will get people interested.

Not reading an article is fine; loudly proclaiming "THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT DESERVE MY ATTENTION" is just going to give it more of other people's attention.

[admiralvic]

I believe clicking it and posting comments add heat and the ratio of views / comments decides how hot the article is. I know when I got my first 1,000 degree article the site didn't actually have an absurd amount of views. I think the article had like 2,000 views, which is maybe up 400 from normal. Either or, a lot of sites will approve their own articles and post silly comments usually to stir people up or influence others to post.

Once I posted my Orgarhythm review (where I scored it low) and said something like "Finally someone who agrees with me that this game sucks" because the site owner told me to post something and that was about all I had in mind. The article shot up to 100 degrees I believe and most of the comments were telling me off or how I was blindly loyal to the site. Sort of funny when I am just agreeing with myself, yet people make it out to be me being a fanboy D-Bag idiot that should be burnt alive.