Is Atelier for girls

[NinjaMonkey]

18 hours ago, Junkhead said:

Like not that I care, I'll probably play it either way. But, like, the target demographic seems slightly confusing to me. It's generally pretty heartwarming and overall rather innocent, but some of the fanservice posters and promotional material seems strictly targeted towards guys...but then the rest of it just has a pretty "girly" appeal to it.

I'm really confused.

Secondary demographics exist, just look at My Little Pony. It's primarily targeted at young girls, but quite a number of guys like it.

17 hours ago, Junkhead said:

What if I'm an alien. Is it not for me, then.

I'm offended.

You mean you aren't an alien?

[Darros]

I would just like to pop into here and say that asking "is X for girls" and "is X targeted for a demographic of girls" are two wildly different questions and the first one has connotations which are.... not good.

[Junkhead]

5 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Secondary demographics exist, just look at My Little Pony. It's primarily targeted at young girls, but quite a number of guys like it.

...you......have a point...

5 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

You mean you aren't an alien?

Exactly.

What if I'm a vampire or a werewolf, though?

32 minutes ago, Darros said:

I would just like to pop into here and say that asking "is X for girls" and "is X targeted for a demographic of girls" are two wildly different questions and the first one has connotations which are.... not good.

Well, you gotta start somewhere.

[Florete]

2 hours ago, Darros said:

I would just like to pop into here and say that asking "is X for girls" and "is X targeted for a demographic of girls" are two wildly different questions and the first one has connotations which are.... not good.

I am wondering what exactly you mean by this because I can't imagine any sane person actually coming to the conclusion that it sounds to me like you're referring to.

[NinjaMonkey]

2 hours ago, Junkhead said:

What if I'm a vampire or a werewolf, though?

Stephanie Meyer has forever ruined both of those for me.

[Johann]

1 hour ago, Florete said:

I am wondering what exactly you mean by this because I can't imagine any sane person actually coming to the conclusion that it sounds to me like you're referring to.

"Is X targeted for a demographic for girls?" is looking at how something is marketed, and can be used to analyze things like sexism in marketing. "Is X for girls?" is basically falling for that marketing, and often perpetuating the cultural norms they set. It's comparing the creative choices vs embracing and reinforcing them as an audience/customer.

@Junkhead Consider this:

It's clear which one is marketed towards girls and which to boys. Toy companies rightfully get shit for this kind of sexist advertising and product design. However, there's nothing stopping any person at all from picking up either and having fun with it. But let's say you were a parent and told your kid they couldn't play with one because it wasn't for them, then you're doing your kid a huge disservice. Same applies if you were a high school kid or even an adult and shamed a friend for enjoying something that "isn't for" them. Probably the most extreme version of this is something like GamerGate, since it's taking that bought-into sexism to a level of harassment, with little to no response from most of the industry.

I don't know shit about Atelier but the only thing that should hold you back from trying something is that it looks like shit

[Junkhead]

13 hours ago, Jules said:

^ the good half of Shallie

She has a bad "half"? oh yeah I forgot you itallic game titles.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Junkhead

[Darros]

13 hours ago, Florete said:

I am wondering what exactly you mean by this because I can't imagine any sane person actually coming to the conclusion that it sounds to me like you're referring to.

Well, I'm a sane person and don't exactly appreciate the insinuation otherwise, so thanks for that, but I'll explain.

Johann has already explained it pretty well in terms of talking about marketing and demographics. Asking if something is "for girls" in a context like this is pretty condescending in the sense of implying that there are "girl things" and "boy things" which is genuine bullshit, things can be marketed towards one gender or the other but that doesn't make the product explicitly gendered. Anyone can use any thing when it comes to pretty much any product. This context kind of ties into the fact that boys using or playing with so called "girl things" is discouraged and frowned upon by and large by society so asking if something is a "girl thing" tends to be dismissive of it and playing into that it's somehow shameful or something like that for a boy to be using something "for girls".

[Rapier]

it's gay, just like madoka, princess maker and its variants, sailor moon, touhou, little witch academia, witch, 100% orange juice, using girl avatars on the internet etc. but you shouldn't allow that to stop you

tbh i think people should just embrace what they are and what they like and go for it without looking back for society's approval, just stand up for your own standards and fight for what you believe

On 29/07/2018 at 2:05 AM, Junkhead said:

yeaaah no

Neptunia's marketing demographic is more obvious to me.

pedophiles?

Edited July 30, 2018 by Rapier

[Darros]

5 minutes ago, Rapier said:

it's gay, just like madoka, princess maker and its variants, sailor moon, touhou, little witch academia, witch, 100% orange juice, using girl avatars on the internet etc. but you shouldn't allow that to stop you

I think I know approximately zero gay people who are into these things? The demographic seems to be straight dudes mostly (sailor moon is way more general audience though). Casually calling stuff like this gay is not cool though tbh

[Rapier]

On a serious note, I'm very interested in Atelier and I'm glad they're coming to the PC. My first game was Atelier Sophie, which was.... fun, I guess, but too slice of life-y and it looked like it lacked objectives, I guess. I concluded it was fun, but too light toned and expensive for me, so I'm waiting for a better discount.

I'm interested on that Atelier PS3 game that has a time for you to complete objectives, but until it is ported to the PC (if it will ever be) I'll be on the lookout for other Atelier games. The one right after Sophie that was released for the PC looks good, but I'm not paying 90 bucks for it, fight me capitalist exploitation.

4 minutes ago, Darros said:

I think I know approximately zero gay people who are into these things? The demographic seems to be straight dudes mostly (sailor moon is way more general audience though). Casually calling stuff like this gay is not cool though tbh

... I don't think I can make a serious excuse/explanation over a joke post in FFTF.

You're the kind of person who lynches others due to RVS posts, I see

Edited July 30, 2018 by Rapier

[Tryhard]

unless they have traps

[Darros]

4 minutes ago, Rapier said:

... I don't think I can make a serious excuse/explanation over a joke post in FFTF.

You're the kind of person who lynches others due to RVS posts, I see

I mean I think the first part was worth genuinely bringing up but calling things gay because of their aesthetic isn't a funny joke, kind of inappropriate if anything.

[Rapier]

1 minute ago, Darros said:

I mean I think the first part was worth genuinely bringing up but calling things gay because of their aesthetic isn't a funny joke, kind of inappropriate if anything.

hard to draw a line about it, but if you legitimately dislike it, well, my bad.

but prims likes 100% orange juice so you're wrong about the demographics

[Junkhead]

43 minutes ago, Rapier said:

pedophiles?

 

[Florete]

13 hours ago, Johann said:

"Is X targeted for a demographic for girls?" is looking at how something is marketed, and can be used to analyze things like sexism in marketing. "Is X for girls?" is basically falling for that marketing, and often perpetuating the cultural norms they set. It's comparing the creative choices vs embracing and reinforcing them as an audience/customer.

 

It's clear which one is marketed towards girls and which to boys. Toy companies rightfully get shit for this kind of sexist advertising and product design. However, there's nothing stopping any person at all from picking up either and having fun with it. But let's say you were a parent and told your kid they couldn't play with one because it wasn't for them, then you're doing your kid a huge disservice. Same applies if you were a high school kid or even an adult and shamed a friend for enjoying something that "isn't for" them. Probably the most extreme version of this is something like GamerGate, since it's taking that bought-into sexism to a level of harassment, with little to no response from most of the industry.

I don't know shit about Atelier but the only thing that should hold you back from trying something is that it looks like shit

 

2 hours ago, Darros said:

Well, I'm a sane person and don't exactly appreciate the insinuation otherwise, so thanks for that, but I'll explain.

Johann has already explained it pretty well in terms of talking about marketing and demographics. Asking if something is "for girls" in a context like this is pretty condescending in the sense of implying that there are "girl things" and "boy things" which is genuine bullshit, things can be marketed towards one gender or the other but that doesn't make the product explicitly gendered. Anyone can use any thing when it comes to pretty much any product. This context kind of ties into the fact that boys using or playing with so called "girl things" is discouraged and frowned upon by and large by society so asking if something is a "girl thing" tends to be dismissive of it and playing into that it's somehow shameful or something like that for a boy to be using something "for girls".

I think you're both going way overboard. Many things are targeted at one gender or another and I see no difference in saying "for girls/boys" vs "made for girls/boys." There's nothing condescending about it and there's nothing wrong with enjoying something that's "for" a demographic you're not technically part of. You've got to get rid of this innate perception that "girl things" are "not for boys." Yeah, I know it's a thing in society overall, but it wasn't a thing in this topic...until you brought it up.

I wasn't implying you were insane. You clearly weren't coming to the conclusion you were referring to, you were merely referring to it. But who is actually going to see a significant difference between "Is X for girls" and "Is X targeted at girls" in normal conversation? If someone will be put off by it being a "girl thing," it doesn't matter how that question is phrased.

[Junkhead]

fuck it

it's for girls

 

I'll still love it.

[Tryhard]

all the time you spent posting in this topic is time you could have spent partaking in whatever that you would not care about the apparent demographics anyway

[Junkhead]

10 minutes ago, Edgelord said:

all the time you spent posting in this topic is time you could have spent partaking in whatever that you would not care about the apparent demographics anyway

yeah I'm sure that changes a lot

[Johann]

6 hours ago, Florete said:

I think you're both going way overboard. Many things are targeted at one gender or another and I see no difference in saying "for girls/boys" vs "made for girls/boys." There's nothing condescending about it and there's nothing wrong with enjoying something that's "for" a demographic you're not technically part of. You've got to get rid of this innate perception that "girl things" are "not for boys." Yeah, I know it's a thing in society overall, but it wasn't a thing in this topic...until you brought it up.

I dunno, I mean the fact that the thread exists is evidence that this perception exists in people here. It's set into people's worldviews, even if it's not addressed. I don't carry it myself, and Darros doesn't either I'm sure.

[NinjaMonkey]

21 hours ago, Johann said:

Probably the most extreme version of this is something like GamerGate, since it's taking that bought-into sexism to a level of harassment, with little to no response from most of the industry.

Except Gamergate was all about ethics in games journalism, after one woman and indie developer, by the name of Zoe Quinn, decided to sleep with someone belonging to a games website (and four other guys - none of whom were her then-fiancé), in exchange for her indie game to receive some coverage.

Edited July 30, 2018 by NinjaMonkey

[Johann]

53 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

Except Gamergate was all about ethics in games journalism, after one woman and indie developer, by the name of Zoe Quinn, decided to sleep with someone belonging to a games website (and four other guys - none of whom were her then-fiancé), in exchange for her indie game to receive some coverage.

Are you out of your fucking mind? It was definitely not about ethics in games journalism, that's just a cover. It was effectively a hate mob that harassed women

Here's a video that does an extremely good job explaining what GG really was:

[Tryhard]

i've got no love for ninjamonkey, but i supported ('ed' important if you think it is) gamergate, and if you do think that I support people like Milo or Vox Day, i'm going to roll my eyes. i'd consider myself a pretty liberal guy, but it is unfortunate that it became a shouting mob, which is what the progression of politics in general has seemed to become. for what it's worth, I did have some nice discussions with some reasonable people I disagreed with, which is about all I cared about. although I did get called a terrorist unironically by someone on this forum, so that was something at least.

that, or can we just go the whole mile and go "gamergate caused trump to be elected" or something and go down an even darker path than this one

Edited July 31, 2018 by Edgelord

[Tryhard]

it did spawn good copypastas, though

[Tryhard]

19 hours ago, Johann said:

Are you out of your fucking mind? It was definitely not about ethics in games journalism, that's just a cover. It was effectively a hate mob that harassed women

Here's a video that does an extremely good job explaining what GG really was:

 

Since I have a chance to sit down and watch, I believe I have seen this video before. This is based on a murky over four year old mess at this point, so I probably shouldn't even bother, but I'll try my best and then shut up about this shit.

0:22 He just starts out with a really dumb argument. Anti-GG is a group that is actively involved in disagreements with GG. It was never just "everyone else". This is like me being part of a political movement, and then claiming that everyone who is neutral is still anti my movement. It makes no sense.

He then goes on at 0:45 to talk about anti-feminists. Clearly, he can distinguish between being neutral to the concept of feminism, a feminist yourself, or an anti-feminist. Yet he can't for GG.

1:00 For what it's worth, the FBI investigated claims of GG harassment and found that there was "absolutely no" basis for the claims.

1:10 This is mostly fair. I believe the latter Swat incident was one that the board /baph/ specifically did for the purposes of causing as much chaos as they could, because they ended up putting up the dox of GG members as well. He actually mentions this board later, but construes it as being the same and as part of the same thing, when they are evidently not (12:57)

Of course, Innuendo also omits the public figures that supported Gamergate and the abuse they got. Totalbiscuit tepidly supported it (and I would say even moved away from it eventually), but he still got people celebrating his death including an ex-Bioware dev years later not to mention all the shit he got at the time. Boogie tried to be diplomatic, but ended up getting shit on for giving the slightest foot to "those" people. We could go on but there's no real need to. He ignores any harassment against these people because it is not convenient and the general combative attitude of those against it (not surprising, but ignored nonetheless).

1:32 So then he comes to his portrayal of an Angry Jack character. This is pretty genius on his end, because he knows this is a great narrative tool. But when it comes down to it, most groups can be abscribed to this character. You could easily do so for religious or political positions. This is to categorise people into two ways: people who are evil, or people who are secretely evil, but don't want to appear evil, i.e an act of demonisation. You can only be good if you're on my side. Well, at first his portrayal of this character doesn't start out in this way, for he remains somewhat reasonable through the opening part of the video. He said that most of his time was spent claiming he's not like those destructive folks. Well, personally, I did not feel a need to do this more than briefly and infrequently, but it would have been like that for most if the discussion was not constantly being whisked away by other people constantly telling GG to disavow this and that, or apologise, or whatever else.

I can contort this character on my own end to talk about a position I disagree with and their own "Jacks", should I feel inclined to. Actually, it reminds me of the same sort of argument that fundamentalists often use on athiests. Something I think he would not be so keen on. This character seems to be the main thing that he focuses on in this video (and this series in general, it seems) but it is inherently flawed. I wonder how much of this is meant to be an obvious generalisation.

~2:00 He keeps pointing towards /pol/ as the origin but the largest community for GG was on reddit under KotakuInAction, one of the subreddits that was set up immediately after it, before even the spread of information was out. He also provides no evidence towards this claim that /pol/ is such an arbitor, because the KotakuInAction reddit or even just twitter activity was far more active and prevalent moreso than anything else.

4:30 If I was inclined to go down this path, I could easily criticise anyone who subscribes to a religion because of the actions of fringes. But I think that is ridiculous, so I don't, and it doesn't make any sense here. The same at 5:20, any movement feeds off itself, good or bad - and most of those either doxxing were reported when seen by people with actual motives.

6:22 I don't know of the latter person, but this makes it seem like people who point out hypocritical or flawed reasoning are somehow conflated to harassment. I will agree with one thing he said here though, that is that it did make them more famous because people thought they were worth responding to, a mistake in my opinion. Brianna Wu in particular practically pushed herself to the forefront in order to take advantage of this, though.

6:33 Let's just say that a persecution complex might be going both ways. The statement about new targets/enemies is true of all political leanings.

7:00 This is especially hilarious because Ian Miles Cheong has denounced his words as part of anti-GG and is now saying the same things that would get him branded a nazi by the same people. So as quite a few people have pointed out in the comments, this part has especially not aged well.

7:20 He brings up Sarah Nyberg in this video as a vocal anti-GG figure (and she is) and claims that someone saying she fucks dogs is ridiculous. May be so. But accusation of pedophilia, sexually touching her niece, or child pornography that she has acquired more than likely makes it a little harder to support. Years ago or not.
https://medium.com/@srhbuttstruth/5-reasons-you-shouldn-t-stand-with-sarah-nyberg-797d84b07ce

7:29 This tweet is obviously facetious. Did he really think it was serious?

8:20 "Jack needs to believe he's the good guy." - this can be easily flipped with not much effort, and is about as meaningless to state. Though at this point he wants to broaden the spectrum so that he portrays the second group is only people like this. This is why the video is actually about his representation of his character moreso than Gamergate, so he can "objectively prove" Gamergate is a hate group.

12:28 This video seems like a whole lot of telling you who you should trust.

13:22 What is he referring to? What videos were taken down? Nothing that I'm aware of, and Brianna Wu tweeting is not a good source. At this point, he is mainly using people that are just straight up anti-GG as sources. I don't really knock him too much for it, because it would be hard to find anything that wasn't biased in some way.

15:07 I prefer to think it of the way Boogie has described it when he was referencing his time at Vidcon (where he got antagonised by Anita as part of that) - "doesn't matter who you are, put yourself out there, you're gonna get shit. When a women or a person of colour says 'I catch it worse than you', I say 'You're probably right, but we're both getting it, so we should be concerned with both'."

The idea that the media that is buddy-buddy with each other in the industry is not even surprising, really, or in the media or politics in general. You can take a look at the obviously coordinated articles proclaiming gamers dead and how awful gamergate is for that. I'm not going to be like "Gamers. They targeted Gamers." but there might be a reason Angry Jack isn't too pleased with that, and with the established gaming industry group that talked shit about various things and tried to mitigate the situation from their logs.

In conclusion: Innuendo Studios is dishonest, at least in this video. He starts vague but reasonable to get you to follow along, but it becomes dubious. He doesn't realise that he's as guilty as his character Angry Jack for using prejudical thinking to fill out 'evidence' of the situation, very little of which he provides in the video. I don't know if this is an intention of the video or if he went on to do more but yeah - this is not a good video.

That said: games journalism is mostly shit and has an unwillingness to change like most modern media organisations, it's clear this has been realised. Kotaku, at the very least did change their ethics policies so journalists couldn't outright pour money into developers they were friendly with, which was at least a start.

To be honest, I'm surprised he didn't toss in Joss Whedon somewhere there considering his vocal opposition, and also considering his dubious claims to be a feminist himself according to his ex-wife.

I'm curious if you have opinions @Julius Nepos - if you're willing to give them.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Edgelord