cheeze_pavilion wrote:I think at the very least that means she doesn't answer the question here of what she's calling for if not a ban.
I think she quite clearly does:
Beat 26 wrote:The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.
Yeah, and in the sentence right above the one you quoted I wrote:
She identifies the problem as the DiD being a recurring trend and that the solution is to evolve gender representations.
For all the talk of there being no 'sides' I feel that I'm still being treated like I'm on one and you're reading what I say with that baggage clouding your understanding. Maybe that's not conscious on your part.
cheeze_pavilion wrote:Eh, I have a hard time believing that.
Believing what?
cheeze_pavilion wrote:I think part of the problem is I don't fit into either of those 'sides'.
Which sides? Neither question brought up a "side."
cheeze_pavilion wrote:I think at the very least that means she doesn't answer the question here of what she's calling for if not a ban.
I think she quite clearly does:
Beat 26 wrote:The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.
cheeze_pavilion wrote:Interpreting her in a way that avoids conceding any ground to her detractors is possibly playing Angel's Advocate. You can admit that people you disagree with have some truth in what they say while still arguing that they are wrong.
I have no idea what "angel's advocate" means, and what it has to do with the subsequent sentence. Or who/what the subsequent sentence is directed at.
"Sides" is referring to your "inclined to agree" and "inclined to disagree" questions.
Angel's Advocate is a play on Devils Advocate. He means you're defending a little too hard against criticisms I think.
Let me ask something before we proceed that I think would be helpful. What countries are we all from.
I'm from the United States.
I ask because some of our misunderstandings may stem from dialect and/or vernacular.
Okay, so you noticed what she was asking for. In that case, why did you say "what is she asking for if not banning?"
Because she's asking for game makers to evolve in their gender representations so that the DiD trope is no longer a trend (I'm more precise in my other post about this, but let's keep it simple for now). So she's asking for whatever the gaming landscape will look like when that happens. She doesn't go into much detail there, which is why I wrote what I did. Like there was even a discussion in the meta thread with Chumpy about whether she's asking for more non-DiD's or less DiD's.
Let's establish two things I think we agree on:
--she's clearly saying the DiD is a problem because it's a recurring trend;
--she clearly proposes that game makers evolve to fix it.
Where I think you're having trouble understanding what I wrote is that your analysis of her stops there, while mine (and others) goes on to ask the next questions about the details of what implementing that evolution will look like.
edit: oops, didn't see a PM about this part.
Beat 26 wrote:The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.
.
[/quote]
So evolve gender representations isn't just "making more women heroes" apparently. So she's asking for more than just "making more women heroes". What she means by "evolve gender representations" is still up in the air at this point. We'll see in episode two.
--she clearly proposes that game makers evolve to fix it.That's not how I'd word it. She's not saying a vague "fix" which could mean anything. She proposes that:
Beat 26 wrote:The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games.
The "evolution" is in the field of gender representation specifically. She's also asking for more women heroes.
So the post of mine you're responding to starts out:
TheHarpoMarxist wrote:Okay, so you noticed what she was asking for. In that case, why did you say "what is she asking for if not banning?"
Because she's asking for game makers to evolve in their gender representations so that the DiD trope is no longer a trend
and because I don't repeat the entire phrase "evolve in their gender representations" and just leave it at "evolve to fix it" you tell me that's not how you'd word it.
...and people tell me I argue semantics.
cheeze_pavilion wrote:...and people tell me I argue semantics.
If you want to stop arguing semantics I'm happy to.
Do you even cheeze_pavilion bro? :-0
This one is out of gas.
Pages