Psyringe: snip ... somehow the simple fact that I a) welcome it if gaming media addresses bigger contexts, and b)
think that a games company spokesperson should be able to address specific concerns with specific, relevant answers instead of cop-out lines, ...snip... There seems to be a "For or against us!" mentality going around that makes it difficult to see the nuances.
Let's see if I'm going to regret this, but there are some nuances I'd like to ask you :)
Since you yourself are not directly expressing an opinion on the mysogynism, etc... topic let's stick to media and journalism and societal progress roles.
I have no beef with your a) but the bolded part of b) I find perhaps revealing.
Do you have the same expectation from politicians? I often find it interesting how many individuals have higher demands and entitled requests directed at other free individuals or groups of people, rather than so called public servants. Do you agree or disagree than in media and /or society this is a large bias, likely related to some submission to authority sociological reality?
Why should any person be expected to address/answer a concern of yours? Apart from decency/rudeness considerations, where do you put the line when someone requests afirmation that you are not willing to give? Do you agree that if the "violence" in a situation is not physical, a minority is not entitled to force a status change through physical means? Do you consider creators/givers' omissions to be somehow more morally reprehensible than consumers/takers' demands?
The polarization I see at root in these debates is between radicalism and conservatism in social politics. It is not a debate about ends, but about means. It almost never gets explored, because ... well because of many different distractions.
Since I asked quite a lot, let me put out there in advance my first impression on this specific topic.
This is the interview excerpt in full for context:
RPS: You have some interesting alternate outfits for heroes. Roller Derby Nova, especially, caught my eye. On its own, that’s totally fine – just a silly, goofy thing. A one-off. But it got me thinking about how often MOBAs tend to hyper-sexualize female characters to a generally preposterous degree – that is to say, make it the norm, not a one-off at all – and StarCraft’s own, um, interesting focus choices as of late. How are you planning to approach all of that in Heroes?
Browder: Well, I mean, some of these characters, I would argue, are already hyper-sexualized in a sense. I mean, Kerrigan is wearing heels, right? We’re not sending a message to anybody. We’re just making characters who look cool. Our sensibilities are more comic book than anything else. That’s sort of where we’re at. But I’ll take the feedback. I think it’s very fair feedback.
RPS: I have to add, though, that comics might not be the best point of reference for this sort of thing. I mean, it’s a medium that’s notorious – often in a not-good way – for sexing up female characters and putting them in some fairly gross situations.
Browder: We’re not running for President. We’re not sending a message. No one should look to our game for that.
RPS: But it’s not even about a message. The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn’t everyone feel empowered? That’s what it’s about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.
Browder: Uh-huh. Cool. Totally.
[PR says we've run over, tells me I have to leave]
RPS: Thank you for your time.
1st QnA - quite nice question if agenda driven (recall I have no problem with that - kill by the sword, die by the sword and all that), answer seems perfectly fair without any disrespect, to me atleast.
2nd QnA - here it starts, is there even a question? :) starts by criticising the previous answer and ends with what could easily be seen as a moral indictment through proxy. To me this is not journalism. Answer is curt, but looks to me to make again a valid point, which to me seems to be, that these presentation choices do not carry a conscious political statement (here I used political in the group dynamics context).
3rd QnA - again criticizes the answer, becomes clearly confrontational, the question is both a strawman and begs the answer. In fact the "journalist" answers himself. The real aswer is agreement, which aligns with the authorial intent implied previously (of no conscious disempowerement message) and is also a clear defusing attempt at what in person has obviously become a tense situation.
Bottom line, without taking sides in the broader cultural war, 2nd and 3rd "questions" are not journalism, at least by what I consider to be the pure ideal.
And to go back to your b). What do you see here, specifically in the 1st answer (because after the 2nd Q, the train was already off track imo) that strikes you as being irrelevant or dismissive? Looks to me the guy understood perfectly what the "journalist" was after and gave an honest answer, was it what the taker/asker wanted to receive? Obviously not, but then, what entitles anyone to get a different answer?
Edited for clarity, the italics for the interview not workign for some reason.