03-02-2014, 08:37 AM
[[RANT MODE: ENGAGED]]
To add to this topic, all these questions converge towards this: what is appropriate or politically correct? Too much appropriateness or correctness leads to the censorship of one thought over another - rather ironically it would be the attempt to suppress the thought (or part of it) of the majority, in (supposedly) the favour of the minority.
If you think about it, this is no better than positive discrimination. I reject this kind of policing or enforcement, because it implies social control, and more importantly controlling what you think through words, semantics.
I'm against political correctness, because I'm against discrimination, not because I'm for discrimination. I'm not for an equality because I don't believe it exists, but I'm for a compromise in the interest of all parties. We can't live in an environment in which we don't communicate, for fear of offending others: it doesn't foster dialogue, only fear and ignorance, and more importantly a social division, which can be instrumentalised against us politically.
I noticed that several people talked about realism and practicality when it came to the design of Sophitia or Ivy's costumes ; simulation is an interesting development in the virtual space of videogames : it allows us to do things we couldn't necessarily do in real life - or more precisely, the image of what we can't do in real life, and in some cases what we mustn't do, like murder or rape. It also allows us to take control, to a certain extent.
Videogames aren't objective or neutral, like people once thought about cinematography - it's politically charged, especially now that it's an attention-garnering, blockbuster-producing industry, not unlike Hollywood. And like cinema, the essence of videogames doesn't rely on a classic narrative form, or realism.
Why not put simulation aside, along with all the notions it brings with it, like realism or practicality? I can't deny that design is a fundamental aspect of a videogame, but I'm questioning its nature which leans on simulation yet again (character design, environment design, level design, etc.).
Like gender, videogames are comprised of many genres and sub-genres. In both cases, I think the labelling has reached a point where it is fetishistic: sure, in the case of the videogames, they're to guide the consumer into buying what he/she wants, and sure, in the case of gender, it's to guide a consumer into finding another consumer he/she wants.
Why do these matter? Why do we do things because we want them? Why don't we do things we haven't thought of wanting? What can we learn from things outside of profitability, efficiency and want? Is it that important?
[[RANT MODE: DISENGAGED]]
To add to this topic, all these questions converge towards this: what is appropriate or politically correct? Too much appropriateness or correctness leads to the censorship of one thought over another - rather ironically it would be the attempt to suppress the thought (or part of it) of the majority, in (supposedly) the favour of the minority.
If you think about it, this is no better than positive discrimination. I reject this kind of policing or enforcement, because it implies social control, and more importantly controlling what you think through words, semantics.
I'm against political correctness, because I'm against discrimination, not because I'm for discrimination. I'm not for an equality because I don't believe it exists, but I'm for a compromise in the interest of all parties. We can't live in an environment in which we don't communicate, for fear of offending others: it doesn't foster dialogue, only fear and ignorance, and more importantly a social division, which can be instrumentalised against us politically.
I noticed that several people talked about realism and practicality when it came to the design of Sophitia or Ivy's costumes ; simulation is an interesting development in the virtual space of videogames : it allows us to do things we couldn't necessarily do in real life - or more precisely, the image of what we can't do in real life, and in some cases what we mustn't do, like murder or rape. It also allows us to take control, to a certain extent.
Videogames aren't objective or neutral, like people once thought about cinematography - it's politically charged, especially now that it's an attention-garnering, blockbuster-producing industry, not unlike Hollywood. And like cinema, the essence of videogames doesn't rely on a classic narrative form, or realism.
Why not put simulation aside, along with all the notions it brings with it, like realism or practicality? I can't deny that design is a fundamental aspect of a videogame, but I'm questioning its nature which leans on simulation yet again (character design, environment design, level design, etc.).
Like gender, videogames are comprised of many genres and sub-genres. In both cases, I think the labelling has reached a point where it is fetishistic: sure, in the case of the videogames, they're to guide the consumer into buying what he/she wants, and sure, in the case of gender, it's to guide a consumer into finding another consumer he/she wants.
Why do these matter? Why do we do things because we want them? Why don't we do things we haven't thought of wanting? What can we learn from things outside of profitability, efficiency and want? Is it that important?
[[RANT MODE: DISENGAGED]]
![[Image: x1aIZ2e.gif]](http://i.imgur.com/x1aIZ2e.gif)
![[Image: shrine.gif]](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/344477/shrine.gif)