Stellaris Dev Diary #77 - Ethics Voice Packs

[TheChronoMaster]

I thought Wiz was actually alright until he started calling everyone sexist and throwing out that dumb 10% that wasn't backed up at all.

I must have missed the part where he referred to everyone as sexist when I read through the dev posts repeatedly, before making each of my posts, to ensure I wasn't missing something worth being angry about.

The rest isn't really relevant at the moment, except to say that the only way to get to a 5:5 ratio of available female and male devs is to have more visible models within the game industry to emulate, in the same way you might give a young girl a robotics kit instead of a doll for a gift, or show off women's MMA to a teenage girl into athletics. I don't think anyone genuinely and without reservation would say that an objectively less talented woman should be hired over a man, but there is a compelling reason to hire a woman over a man if their talents are roughly equal and you are concerned about equalizing the overall talent pool in the future. If nothing else, it's worth alternating, or hiring 1 and 1. It may be unfair to the man, but the industry, at the moment, really isn't hurting for jobs as compared to other fields.

The Bioware internal politics deal is mostly hearsay from what I've seen, but I haven't researched it enough to say either way. It's not a hugely relevant topic of discussion at the moment, but I will concede that point to you on the basis of my lack of knowledge.

As for it not being backed up, what does he need to back up? He said they estimated a significantly higher complaint amount for this voice, and he noted they got a significantly higher complaint amount, as compared to similar content done previously. His estimate is that, had it been a male voice actor, they'd have got 10-20% of the complaints that they had gotten to that point (it's probably around 5% now due to the knock on effect of people complaining about him noting there were more complaints). Those are his numbers. He doesn't need to prove empirically that is the case in a double blind trial in a parallel universe, just note that they've gotten significantly more complaints about this one specific line from this one specific piece of DLC as they did from many prior optional DLCs of similar scope, and is drawing a conclusion based on that data. His conclusion may be right or wrong, but he is presenting it to you, and you are attacking him for applying his logic to a problem, instead of presenting credible alternatives to his logic.

EDIT: As a side note, referring to the post prior to mine, noting a woman's voice as screechy or shrill is a common way of dismissing her as unimportant or hysterical in a number of fields, when men with abnormally high or low voices don't tend to get the same treatment, so you're not really helping your case with that logic.


EDIT2: For the record, because I do know it will come up, no, I am not what you'd call an 'SJW'. I find quite a few people to be tarred with that brush initially to be repellent and idealistic to a point of zealotry that I cannot stomach, much like those who oppose them have become over the last couple years. The term, however, has been overused to the point of meaninglessness, and is now shorthand for 'person who does not think the way I do'. Politically, I am on the American center-right, leaning right (or what was right...) economically, and centrist politically.

 

[eatssteak3]

EDIT: As a side note, referring to the post prior to mine, noting a woman's voice as screechy or shrill is a common way of dismissing her as unimportant or hysterical in a number of fields, when men with abnormally high or low voices don't tend to get the same treatment, so you're not really helping your case with that logic.

Did you actually read what I said? The screeching example was just an example, it was completely irrelevant. Logic doesn't need "help", my "case" is that a fallacious line of reasoning has been committed, correlation doesn't imply causation. It was an example to show how noting that people having on average more negative reactions to female voice over need not necessarily be due to "that's improper tone for a woman" (paraphrasing) as Wiz stated.

Since I apparently have to make a politically correct example, it's like saying because you heard thunder 3 times in a row and it happened every time you stood up, that therefore you're causing thunder to happen by standing up. Is this example more acceptable to you?

 

[TheChronoMaster]

Did you actually read what I said? The screeching example was just an example, it was completely irrelevant. Logic doesn't need "help", my "case" is that a fallacious line of reasoning has been committed, correlation doesn't imply causation. It was an example to show how noting that people having on average more negative reactions to female voice over need not necessarily be due to "that's improper tone for a woman" (paraphrasing) as Wiz stated.

Since I apparently have to make a politically correct example, it's like saying because you heard thunder 3 times in a row and it happened every time you stood up, that therefore you''re causing thunder to happen by standing up. Is this example more acceptable to you?

Not necessarily, because there is only one significant variable here as compared to prior cosmetic DLCs paradox has done: Voices. Specifically, male and female voices. Of the two, the more notably female voice was complained about much more frequently than the male voice, despite the male voice being similarly cartoonish but fitting the fanatical version of the ethos [and directly referencing 40k, which is far more OTT and insane than any stellaris voice can possibly be], and the hive mind voice being a mix of a chorus of voices. If that line was spoken by a male general with the exact same tone and inflection in Rome: Total War, or even something like Company of Heroes, would it be out of place? Would you consider those sufficiently 'militaristic'? I can say with confidence it wouldn't be out of place (and isn't, in Rome's case, I think they used that exact quote in speeches in both 1 and 2).

Now I admit, this premise falls apart if you think he was lying about the female voice being the most complained about, or if he was lying about it being much more complained about than other similar things, or if you genuinely believe that at least half of those who submitted a complaint did so for no reason involving sexism, either conscious or unconscious, but that isn't a debate, it's rejecting the premise. Which you are entitled to do, of course, but don't confuse it for arguing against the point.

EDIT: As a mea culpa, Wiz didn't say it was more complaints than any prior DLC, I misread that. He said it was as many complaints as they expected, and they expected a lot. From that, I can infer it was an abnormally large number, which must be where I got my impression from. I apologize for the error.

 

[Summin Cool]

snip.

I'm pretty sure I can't convince you in any direction I can take, I can only suggest that you read the thread through again and conclude what Wiz was thinking in regards of this logic. That's the crux of this mess, the fact that he took legitimate complaints about the bad voice over and managed to somehow conclude that the complainers were in the wrong for complaining.

 

[TheChronoMaster]

I'm pretty sure I can't convince you in any direction I can take, I can only suggest that you read the thread through again and conclude what Wiz was thinking in regards of this logic. That's the crux of this mess, the fact that he took legitimate complaints about the bad voice over and managed to somehow conclude that the complainers were in the wrong for complaining.

That isn't at any point what he said, he in fact said he cannot judge any individual complaint's merit, just the volume.

I am okay with agreeing to disagree, however. It's obvious our interpretations will not align.

 

[neonit]

Disappointing. Also, shows how much faith you have in your product, if you decide to just blanket dismiss any and all criticism as "its sexism everyone, just everydays sexism, nothing to see here".

I dont even feel strongly about the voice (lines) itself, so its not like i particullary care about it. But instead of adressing the complaints you decide to polarize the issue. Why? What does that achieve? To me it just comes over as a smug dismissal.

edit: and to add to that, people defending this saying "he doesnt attack anyone personally" - no, he just implies that anyone who disagress is sexist. The same way i could go and say that everyone who disagrees with what i just said is racist. Its just silly and shows that you KNOW that your arguments are weak.

 

[eatssteak3]

Not necessarily, because there is only one significant variable here as compared to prior cosmetic DLCs paradox has done: Voices. Specifically, male and female voices. Of the two, the more notably female voice was complained about much more frequently than the male voice, despite the male voice being similarly cartoonish but fitting the fanatical version of the ethos [and directly referencing 40k, which is far more OTT and insane than any stellaris voice can possibly be], and the hive mind voice being a mix of a chorus of voices. If that line was spoken by a male general with the exact same tone and inflection in Rome: Total War, or even something like Company of Heroes, would it be out of place? Would you consider those sufficiently 'militaristic'? I can say with confidence it wouldn't be out of place (and isn't, in Rome's case, I think they used that exact quote in speeches in both 1 and 2).

Again, that's a correlation. That does not imply causation. That's the problem with the line of reasoning here. Just because it wasn't done for men in two cases (even a hundred!) but was done for women in 1,000 testable, proven cases... that does not mean it is DUE to them being women, or society doing bad things to women, or society having views of the way women should behave, etc... All these statements may even be TRUE, that does not mean they are the CAUSE of a particular phenomena. That is the problem. You need to establish a causal link after noting a correlation, merely noting a correlation doesn't in any way establish a causal link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Again, a counter example:

In 999 cases out of 1,000, when people procreate, the woman gives birth not the man. Men are viewed to have a proper societal role, so they are told/forced not to give birth to the children, right? No, we scientifically search for what actually *causes* the birth of children, and discovered hey, it's because men don't naturally biologically have children (usually...). Similarly, while it may be true even that culturally men impose certain restrictions on the way women behave based on xyz patriarchy thing, that does not mean this causes individual cases where women's work is received poorly. It MAY be that, but it's an assumption until a causal relationship between the two is established.

Further, I'd be more than happy to point to counter examples of strong women bucking against the cultural norm and being more well received than their male counterparts doing likewise. Ivanova from Babylon 5 (as noted earlier in this thread) for one. Ripley from Alien, for another. Buffy the Vampire... nevermind shouldn't let people know I watch that (***ERROR no masculinity detected ERROR***). Xena from Xena... Elaine from Seinfeld... Michonne from Walking Dead... list goes on.

Now I admit, this premise falls apart if you think he was lying about the female voice being the most complained about, or if he was lying about it being much more complained about than other similar things, or if you genuinely believe that at least half of those who submitted a complaint did so for no reason involving sexism, either conscious or unconscious, but that isn't a debate, it's rejecting the premise. Which you are entitled to do, of course, but don't confuse it for arguing against the point.

I don't need to genuinely believe half the people who submitted their complaints did or did not do anything, I just need to read what they said. None of them mentioned it being about sexism. Going beyond that is guesswork, and I'll have no part in assuming people's motives when I don't know based on what they've said. If you point me to 5 people who clearly said it for completely sexist reasoning, I'll be right there with you saying that's absurd and immoral (believe it or not, despite what you may assume of me, or what Wiz may assume of me, I'm vehemently anti-sexist). I haven't seen that in this thread. I've seen a lot of people complaining that the voiceover just doesn't quite fit for a generic militarist voiceover.

The reason why the other VOs are more well received is they appeal to the more normal stereotype empire people are wanting to create. If that Xenos line doesn't PERFECTLY fit for the majority of us (and it literally was perfect for me, as someone who recreates the Imperium of Man out of nerdishness), it's at least close to what we envision (it's hard to get it wrong having some stuck up sounding person rant about filthy Xenos for a Xenophobic empire). The sort of crazy barbarian thing is probably not even the majority of militarist empires that people play, and it's so "specific" that it directly clashes with a wide swathe of them (e.g. professional militarist empires). This isn't as much a problem for the others.

EDIT: As a mea culpa, Wiz didn't say it was more complaints than any prior DLC, I misread that. He said it was as many complaints as they expected, and they expected a lot. From that, I can infer it was an abnormally large number, which must be where I got my impression from. I apologize for the error.

No need to stress it man. These are just informal discussions, minor mistakes happen, it's not like it really affects your point anyways.

 

[Hitchno]

Probably. I'm still right, though.

Karan S'jet would like a word with you. So would Sarah Kerrigan. You're not right, the VO doesn't fit, it's a shitty fit and you're upset because people are telling you it's a shitty fit. "Sexism" "because women" and so on has become the literal figure to hide around when someone proves/disagrees/etc someone wrong and they start screaming "BUT YOU REALLY JUST HATE WOMEN!"

Because they're so ideologically deep in the rabbit hole they can't see anything else. Just stop. You're going to do nothing but piss people off and more importantly piss the fans off.

Let me finish this off with. Nier: Automata - *clutching pearls*, OMG SEXISM, He's a Misogyinist for drawing her like that!
Yoko Taro: I just really like girls.

 

[Darrenb209]

I'd just like to point out, rereading the thread after having slept for a few hours, the most sexist posts in this thread are the ones by Wiz.

They're still not very strongly sexist, but there is a form of irony in the most sexist posts being by the person accusing us of it.

 

[Barón Rojo]

 

[nathelbiya]

Let's just say that having some men on the internet being upset about an aggressive-sounding woman was not an unexpected development.

So you tell your paying customers that they only disagree with your design choices because they are sexist?

 

[Bergest]

It is pretty obvious, that the main topic of outrage right now are not the voices but Wiz and his insults and this is a good thing! It is good that the community (a big part of it) won't itself just be insulted by paradox without a backlash!

It is pretty funny, because I actually like the militarist voice. I like the quote very much and the voice fits an barbarian culture very well, I am just disgusted by the arrogant and insulting attitude of Wiz towards the own community!

 

[Eelectrica]

So you tell your paying customers that they only disagree with your design choices because they are sexist?

Not what's being said at all. If you don't like the way the line was delivered or like the script or whatever then Wiz's comment obviously doesn't apply to you.
Wiz's comment only applies to people upset simply because it's a women reading the line. That's it.

Also they've said it's modable and you're not restricted so if you don't like 1 of the voices you've got a whole other 9 to pick from or create one yourself or wait for modders to create one you like better.

Think I'll wait for a Mr Torgue mod myself, or learn how to do it myself if no one else does.

 

[SWVRoma]

I'm loving the concept of these voices. However, I'm echoing the sentiment that the Militarist voice doesn't quite fit. Or at least it doesn't with that particular sample. I'd love to hear more, though I know we'd have to wait for such.

I am, however, immensely disappointed in @Wiz for jumping to "omg sexism!" because the Militarist voice seems a bit rough.

The Xenophobe voice fits the stereotype (british? Yep. Warhammer 40kish? Yep).

The Hive Mind fits the stereotype (very Borgish).

The Militarist is supposed to be Klingon, I suppose, but it's harder to come across with just a single line. Need more.

Of course, I'd LOVE male and female voice actor options for each ethos. It'd make play variety more interesting.

 

[Shimmergloom]

This is so cool!

 

[Amaror]

If that line was spoken by a male general with the exact same tone and inflection in Rome: Total War, or even something like Company of Heroes, would it be out of place? Would you consider those sufficiently 'militaristic'? I can say with confidence it wouldn't be out of place (and isn't, in Rome's case, I think they used that exact quote in speeches in both 1 and 2).

With the exact same tone and inflection? No I would not consider it sufficient. It's militaristic, sure. So is the VO here. But it still sounds dumb. Because they are quoting Shakespear while pretending to angrily spout out words. If they desperately wanted to make their VO sound so barbaric, they should have just written more appropriatly barbaric lines. You know instead of quoting Shakespear. And if they wanted to use that line so badly they could have just used a tone and inflection that actually sounded like a military commander quoting Shakespear. But they tried both and it sounds dumb.

 

[BrianSH]

You're just going to have to do a better job on the voices rather than blame the audience for bad decisions or poor quality control. No-one is falling for childish and bullshit gender nonsense any more.

For an example on how to do believable and high quality militaristic female voices correctly please see Colonel Corazon Santiago from Alpha Centauri.

 

[Elimdur]

"Arm the assault probes! Fire at will! Hail them!"

This is what an organized militarist empire should sound like. Well performed by a female actor. Perfectly done. The criticism was not against woman but against the barbaric tone that does not match an organized spacefaring militaristic empire like many of us like to run.

 

[Veryinky]

I really loved the voice of Sidney Beauclair, the default fanatic militarist human faction, in the Utopia trailer. Also makes me wish that megastructures were something important enough that factions would fight over, negotiate sharing in diplomacy.

 

[Fimconte]

If that line was spoken by a male general with the exact same tone and inflection in Rome: Total War, or even something like Company of Heroes, would it be out of place? Would you consider those sufficiently 'militaristic'? I can say with confidence it wouldn't be out of place (and isn't, in Rome's case, I think they used that exact quote in speeches in both 1 and 2).

Amaror hits the nail exactly on the head in regards to this.
The tone sounds like an overzealous DM or someone hamming up their Shakespear recital.

The main issue I have with the militarist VO is that it kinda only works for Xenophobic Militarists (or Radical Hammists) and even then it's still kinda bad.
Militarist =/= Bloodthirsty Theatre Historians.

You can be a Militarist/Egalitarian and fight for freedom, liberty and all that jazz.
You can be a Militarist/Xenophile and fight for Alien Rights to Facehug people.
You can be a Militarist/Authoritarian and fight for your right to own slaves.
You can be a...