Clarkson gone!

[Kralizec]

I think you rather miss the point, nobody's saying that GTA turns the average player into a sociopathic killer, the argument is that it fosters a callous attitude to other people, especially women.


It's like in Crusader Kings II when the game asks you to consider "should I kill newborn Henry and then his Dad so I can inherit the throne".


It's not a healthy thought process, if you emotionally invest in games (many gamers do) then it raises questions about whether you should be confronted with/offered such choices.

I don't agree with your position, but to be fair you make a good case.

I think it would be highly inappropriate to compell the gaming industry to make their products comply with pedagogical standards. They're not responsible for fostering civic virtues. It might seem odd to call video games "art", but I definitely think that artistic freedom should apply. If a game clearly encourages or endorses criminal/unethical behaviour, that's another thing. And I would definitely support measures aimed at preventing children from playing GTA V or similar games, which is a no-brainer for pretty much everyone.

I vaguely recall you said you've played Skyrim (and presumably liked it). I'm a big fan of that series as well, and to me, an Elder Scrolls game where you can't roleplay as a sociopathic Dark Brotherhood assassin doesn't deserve the title.*

(*except Morrowind)

[Beskar]

When was the last time you saw a fat female character in a computer game who have significant dialogue?

Borderlands 2.

Yes, was one of those rare examples where it occurs in a 'popular' title. If you said "name 3", I would be really stuck, as I cannot even think of a second...

[CrossLOPER]

I think you rather miss the point, nobody's saying that GTA turns the average player into a sociopathic killer, the argument is that it fosters a callous attitude to other people, especially women.

Does playing GTA turn you into a callous neckbeard, or does being a callous neckbeard turn you to GTA?

It's like in Crusader Kings II when the game asks you to consider "should I kill newborn Henry and then his Dad so I can inherit the throne".

It's not a healthy thought process, if you emotionally invest in games (many gamers do) then it raises questions about whether you should be confronted with/offered such choices.

Kinda like you are confronted with difficult choices IN REAL LIFE? I guess we wouldn't want anyone developing critical thinking skills in a simulated environment. Also, the middle ages were well know for being kind and completely lacking in morally questionable actions taking place.

In Mass Effect the well written female character all have fantastic buttocks, all wear skin tight pants and are often shot from behind, at waist level, when talking to the PC.

I was kind of with you until:

When was the last time you saw a fat female character in a computer game who have significant dialogue?

About as many times I saw a fat male character have anything significant to say. Wait, I have one for that. There was this serial killer/rapist in SWAT 4. He went quietly mumbling something about "his darlings". I assume he meant the teenager I dug out of his dungeon and the other lady tied up on the mattress.

[Greyblades]

Edit:I think we need a way to automatically shift the first line in a paragraph a few spaces away from the post border.

I notice I have made a mistake; my last post was hypocritical. Itself an example of the same debate methods I have been railing against. It is a failure of my own philosophy; I let what objectivity I had been trying to maintain slip and devolved into party rhetoric. As you can see I placed unnecessary ammunition in my opponent’s hands for little more than a false sense of satisfaction that quickly evaporated.
I failed myself and I must acknowledge my failure and increase my efforts to avoid doing so again else I stop calling myself a man.

Also I realize that pointing out the duplicitous debate strategies of the opposition is itself counterproductive due to its universal in all debates. It's only use is for countering accusations phrased to imply innocent of said issues on the speaker’s side, to use it myself will merely allow the opposition to do the same.

What are you, 12?

When I was twelve I was accused on the internet of being a fifteen year old and I somehow ended up taking that as a indication of my advanced maturity.
I'm still here talking on forums, so evidently not much has changed. In a way I am indeed twelve, maybe younger, body be damned.

He said he wasn't, Quinn doesn't get mentioned until roughly the middle of the article and she gets about as much "air-time" as everyone else. so, to summarise, I see no evidence of bias in the article, there's no evidence they were in a relationship at the time, the article is not about Quinn but (partly) about Pepsi pushing a sexist angle and he's not written anything else about her since.

It doesnt matter if the bias is clear, in any other journalistic field if a journalist is told to report on a person he was in a relationship with he is expected to recuse himself to avoid bias and in other fields a reporter who hides his relationship to report on the article can be fired for collusion. Nathan Grayson did not recuse himself nor did he state his relationship so when he went on a tirade against his ex Girlfriend he unintentionally proved that he had violated journalistic ethics.

Had this been a one off thing it would not have gone anywhere, the public who cared about journalistic intergrity would have been satisfied with a small policy change and maybe Nathan's blacklisting. Unfotunately digging uncovered more and more examples of this going on, starting with zoe quinn it was found Ben kuchera was paying ms quinn's patreon before writing this about her, Patrica Hernandez was found inviting zoe quinn to a meeting a year before writing this and this. Soon there were cases found that didnt include zoe quinn; patricia hernandez giving favourable coverage to her roomate Anna Anthropy, Lauren WainWright penning a number of articles on her own employer square-enix without confiding the information on the page.

These connections kept being exposed and the reaction was to either try to cover it up through deletions or by diverting attention towards the people pointing it out with attacks on them. Evidently it has worked as you are now defending them while not knowing of these specific collusions.

I cannot explain why this is the issue that got people up in arms instead of the previous scandals. I highly suspect it is because AAA developers have PR departments to keep the public outrage to a minimum, departments that indie developers dont have; had Sony, activision, or EA in thier scandals reacted with the blatant contempt of the indies here I believe that this sort of consumer revolt would have happened years ago.
However it is largely immaterial why this is happening now instead of another time, it is happening and if it succeeds gaming media will become forced to adhier to the standards of other fields of journalism.

As far as Anita Sarkeesian goes, I'm not a big fan but what she says about games is broadly correct, in GTA you can beat prostitutes to death, steal all their cash and then if you get caught the cops confiscate some cash, you lose the car you were driving and that's it.

Her point is that while you can chose not to use that baseball bat, there's little incentive not to. You can actually be a "good" guy in GTA, murder a few prozies, get nicked and then go back the main plot where you agonise over the morals of being a "decent criminal"

And I argue that it is a pointless argument because there is no harm in allowing grown adults the freedom to do that in thier games. Whether the argument is more violent or sexist the core is that games will influence how people think in significant amounts and if thompson was proven wrong why is it any different for sarkeesian.

But that's not the only issue; It is in the interest of those that shares her views to dissassociate themselves from her and find a champion who is harder to dismiss. As husar's reaction to sargon of akkad a few weeks ago exhibited: every imperfection be it swearing, tone or presentation will be siezed upon as an excuse to dismiss the entire argument.
It is the arguer's responsibility if they wish to get thier point across to answer those criticisms by correcting accordingly until there is no criticism remaining that can be objectively proven. This way those who wish to ignore the message have to either, engage the argument directly, or admit to themselves that they are ignoring this person because they just dont want to deal with it, which will be counted as a flaw of the person and not the thing they ignore.

Ms sarkeesian shows herself as not willing to answer critiscisms valid or otherwise, to the point of shutting down the avenues of communication. Those who agree with her might be able to get past that but everyone else not already invested will just dismiss her as another idealogue preaching to the choir.

It sort of adopting the tactics and not getting the point of it. Get in through a lie, then go in with active derailment tactics. That's sort a check list on how to get banned from that type of expo. Then claim victory to show the evil and hypocrisy of their opponents. It was a funded kickstarter with that specific purpose.

That is the anti story, GG's story is that they were kicked out for asking questions in a civil manner during a pannel (full recording here)and later the expo called the police on them while they were peacefully congregating outside.

I'll leave determining which is right to the viewer.

The edge of harassment is towards feminists. It heavily outnumber the average harassment noise. It's underlying the entire conversation.

IIRC Ben's article was basically that here's some indie games that you can find to be interesting. I might be mixing him up with Grayson on that though.

It's worth remembering that at this point, something like 99% of the active harassment is still towards Zoe.

Getting only trolls would be a vast improvement. That is of an issue. When the trolls have upgraded to harassers (who don't disappear by being ignored) and there's no system to take care of them, what do you do then? Let them win of course. That won't ever become a problem later on.

To quote a wise and ancient sage (who exresses this in a depressingly more conscise way that I ever could) by the name of Razorfist:

"...and has harrasment and even worse taken place in the name of this movment? Absolutely. Harrassment and grotesque unconscionable violations of privacy have taken place in defense of figures targeted by the movment as well, proving only that there is not a party in existance that assholes dont turn up to. It doesnt mean you call off the party folks.

"The 2000 democratic national convention was penned in by rioting and protests, there were sweeping riots across all of LA but you simply do not halt the nomination process simply because rage against the machine needs to promote thier new albu-I mean social change. I mean heck I seem to remember back in 2004 during the 'hate bush' protests seeing a load of busted out windows in downtown Phoenix courtesy of fringe elements of the protest movment. I dont remember these folks calling for the end of that movment.

"Accusations of harassment are not invalid, not at all, but your problem, may I suggest, is not actually with the movment but with the act of harassment itself[...]The pont is that we see the same behavior at every societal subset and debate from radical femenism to my little pony so why would a divisive issue like gamergate be any different?"

Quoted from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mYXk_wfG-I

Disabling comments one of the things that get mostly ignored, unless you have an axe to grind.

Debating the circumstances of a criticism can also be considered a derailment tactic as it doesn't dispute the content. In this case it reinforces an impression that Anita is refusing to accept critiscism, for whatever reason. That impression is rooted from a general lack of acknowlegement of her mistakes and not focused entirely on her comments section.

Mess around= Move around in this case. Makes a stronger visual imagery.

It is drawn from a specific narrative. You can reject that narrative and thus rejecting the point it would make (making it incorrect in your mind), but from that narrative it's not a lie. The combined work of the game developers put it in there for a reason.

The mere presence of the ability to move around a body does not in and of itself imply any intent of what the players are supposed to do with it. If ms sarkeesian is going to state as fact "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" and is proven absolutely wrong you'll be dissapointed if you expect me or anyone else to pay attention to narrative when presented with such an unacknowledged falsehood.

It would diversify the market. Some games would have more. Most less. That would be a good thing.

Questionable, these developers are dissassociating themselves with thier core costumer base for the promise of a new one. Sure, for a time there will be greater diversity but unless the new customer base proves itself as profitable as the old one the developers will be faced with the choice of switching back or accept being outpaced by the competition and made irrelevant.
Unless you can pad this customer base with enough people to become as profitable as the old base, people willing to keep paying for new products for years to come and wont leave after a fasion, it will devolve to another niche market and become largely ignored by the mainstream.

The people most suited to pad that base are the same people Anti-GG keeps alienating.

I suspect the new Positive Female Characters is a response to that. Since the focus are mostly on positive things, it's way less aggressive.

Good, but their peaceful success hinged on the support of the people who were directly linked to the ones they suffered under and they got that support by being the rational alternative to the violent mob. You need to be seen to disassociate yourself with the people saying gamers are dead/inheritly sexist. Every time you see these things happening, every time they are presented to you, you need to be seen as rejecting this attitude, not making excuses for it. Do that and you will find it will propel you further than any eloquent argument could without it.

Do not stand by and allow yourself to be painted as another "rabid femenazi out to rip joy from your hobby with no regard for the desires of the consumer" any more than MLK didnt allow himself to be painted as another "spiteful n***** who wants to wreak vengeance on the whites with no regard for individual innocence".

It's sort of hard to prove that you don't have a collusion, from someone that wants you to have one, when you're open with that you are in contact with them and do a theme piece. The summary, consisting of two things, if you read the articles is that the gamer is becoming dead the same way a movier is. When everyone does it, it's no longer an identifier,even if some people are more into it than others.

Of course it's hard to prove you dont have a bias when you do.

Journalists are supposed to be objective, in any other field they are supposed to recuse themselves when the bias is too much to stay objecive. Now there is leeway, if it is believed that there isnt a conflict of interest they might be allowed to comment as a journalist, but in those cases they are expected to reveal any association between themselves and those they comment upon, regardless of the briefness of the association.

For a long time the gaming press did not do this, left to thier own devices a lot of them were found colluding and when it was exposed the companies hiring them did a horrendous job responding; and too many of them responded to valid critiscism with vitriol and contempt and the consumer riot that ensued is hardly surprising and well earned.

The second and more important part is the massive criticism of an active harassment campaign. Not trolling, major harassment way beyond the regular internet trolling noise. That got the explosion.

On the Anti-side perhaps, pointing out the otherside's harrassers is a good way to accrue support, but despite all the harassment there was truth, evidence that has mounted that implicates these people as disregarding the Journalistic code of ethics and when the anti side started focused soley on attacking the harrassers it was simple for the Pro side to simply give thier evidence, point to the attacks on the harrassers and say "these people coordinating a smear campaign to distract the population from reading our evidence in the hope that it will save thier skins."

With evidence like this combined with deletions of prevfious articles that justscreamed coverup it became undisputable.

The narrative that's pushed that you ignore and that the entire world notices are the massive harassment, way, way beyond trolling. There's a reason why GG got kicked out of 4chan and why the official GG supporters are almost entirely consisting of people with hateful and dubious reputation.

GG got kicked out of 4chan through the moderators deleting every post someone made on the topic.

This was unheard of. Normally, every time something like Gamergate happened the mods would merely comb through and remove the illegal stuff (child porn, doxx and swat threads), they did it for chanology, they did it for luzsec, they did it for every operation and anonymous activity before that has been accused of harassment. But this time they were killing all discussion on the subject at the root regardless of if it was a doxxing thread or merely a thread asking what gamergate was.

See, every now and then mods would go nuts and censor left and right and most of the time m00t, the owner, would respond by replacing the moderator with someone less banhappy. But this time it was rampant and m00t said it was his idea and in the face of this most of the site defected to 8chan, which is almost identical but not run by a man who had apparantly only grown a conscience just as gamergate was starting to gain ground.

That is a an example of disorganisation (since anti GG isn't exactly a movement as such) and the internet. Some degree of trolling on the net seems to be the norm on many sites. Then again, you run with 5 mighty examples. I can't post the content of the FF twitter link with more than 100 posts without getting a warning. "Get cancer" is a nicer one from the list. Have you read it?

Yup have you read this? Or this?

Crazies be universal. We must strive to see past them because they wont go away if we keep hitting them and ignoring those who have legitimate grievences.

That would require them to read the tiny areas were something that could be called an organised Anti GG really exist. A well thought out argument has to be read first. And the heavy spinners are pretty much beyond salvation.

It worked once, until the context were provided afaik. They are fond of the method though, they also use it against reviews they don't like. Because ethics and free speech, you know.

Ugh, As I mentioned was being an idiot when I said the things these are replying to. To find out the intended reaction actually happened makes me feel worse.

If you havent noticed, and I doubt you haven't, both side spins. Both sides detracts and both sides accuses the other of misrepresentation while doing a fair bit of misrepresenting themselves. Both sides also doxx and swat eachother, pointing out when the other side does it but forgetting when it's thier side acting out. That's what happens when you get a group, there's allways some asshole. But every time a member starts to voice doubts those on thier side come to reaffirm thier convictions, first through reason then, if and when that doesnt work, through peer preassure.

Yet the freak accidents of history shows that both sides doing the same things doesnt automatically make both sides equally wrong or equally right; sometimes we're all goddamn idiots beating our chests at eachother over nothing, other times one side who has been tricked to want to kill everyone else. Most of the time it's somewhere between those, one side is right and one side is wrong, but through the fog of self affirmation, propaganda and outright peer preassure those who have already joined a side are nigh incapable of objectively knowing which side is right and wrong.

People's views become contaminated, much in the same way that these journalists are accused of being, and that contamination can permanently colour a person's viewpoint. Even if it is minor acquaintance or full indoctrination it seems there is no foolproof way to truly recapture the objectivity that comes with initial ignorance. So when we look to something to impart the news of the day whether it is wars of video games we want our sources to be as objective as possible, and when the provider of the news is unable to be objective we want him to hand over to someone who is objective.

Now these days noone can be truly objective, and I doubt there was a time when it was otherwise. Whether one side is right and another wrong, the second you hear them out you can't help but be swayed however slighty and that influence will never become truly neutral again. To counter this we ask journalists to assess themselves, and even if they can be objective we ask them to provide a record of their influences in the hope that it will inform the reader when the journalist is being factual and opinionated.

Then evidence is presented that these people who call themselves objective are in fact biased, that the journalists have been witholding that bias from the public. When the newspaper in response ignores the evidence and uses the assumption of objectivity to call the accuser lairs, sexists and worse, how can you still believe that the journalist is unbiased? Indeed how can you ignore the accuser when they tell you the newspaper is protecting the journalist in fear of being proven wrong and being punished for a crime they actually commit?

A question that I have been wrestling with for the last month is: which side is correct? I will likely be wrestling with that question for my entire life over every conflict I engage in as I am long contaminated. On the political scale I started ignorant and thus had the potential to be objective, and when I came to understand the ideas of nationalism, of all the good that my country has done, I was shifted to the right. As I grew up I became influenced with the propaganda of the liberals which showed me the extreme of the right and in recoil my political outlook shifted to the left. Now, in response to this I am back to middle again as in my mind the liberal political left has shown itself as the same self affirming arrogant hippocrytes that they allways accuse the right of being. I now think both sides extremes are as bad as eachother just with opposite casting in the role of master and slave.

Sad thing is, it was when condemning the other side for thier own groupthink that made me realize my side's own.

[Greyblades]

In response to the fat women in gaming: we need more of them. We need better writted females too, but that's because we need better writing in gaming in general.

Men or women, too many times do our game characters get written with the skill of teenager made lemon fanfics.

Dont yell at mario for princess peach because that's not expected to be smart. Noones thinks it is worth taking life lessons from.

Do yell at the recent final fantasy's for making thier characters boring melodramatic stiff idiots, 'cause I know from real life experience that there are some people who think they are supposed to be deep and meaningful.

Calling for the elimination of fanservice however is dumb, reduction of it in serious works is fine and calling for more female directed fanservice is a great idea, but eliminating it altogether will just piss people off and validate accusations of censorship.

[CrossLOPER]

In response to the fat women in gaming: we need more of them.

Pick from this list of types of individuals you would like to appear in your video games:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/...ntity-project/

[Greyblades]

Pick from this list of types of individuals you would like to appear in your video games:

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/...ntity-project/

I'll take anyone as long as the person writing it is likely to tell a good story and not sacrifice quality to make a point. If I wanted to read theoretical philosophy and politics I'll read theoretical philosophy and politics, but I dont want it shoehorned into my games at the expense of my entertainment.

I had to read coetzee's disgrace 4 months ago, he's great at social commentary but he's a shit writer, guess which part of that made me hate his work.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Does playing GTA turn you into a callous neckbeard, or does being a callous neckbeard turn you to GTA?

GTA 3 was the last game I played, there were three standout "clutter" NPC's in the game, ordinary citizens you could rob, kill etc - they were the hooker, the homo and the old guy in the trenchcoat.

The game rewarded you for beating these people to death and not getting caught.

Kinda like you are confronted with difficult choices IN REAL LIFE? I guess we wouldn't want anyone developing critical thinking skills in a simulated environment. Also, the middle ages were well know for being kind and completely lacking in morally questionable actions taking place.

In my country, I have never asked myself if I should kill my uncle or cousin for his share of the family fortune. To be fair most of the family fortune is gone and I'm the only son of our Patriarch anyway, so maybe me cousin is plotting to kill me.

What do you think?

About as many times I saw a fat male character have anything significant to say. Wait, I have one for that. There was this serial killer/rapist in SWAT 4. He went quietly mumbling something about "his darlings". I assume he meant the teenager I dug out of his dungeon and the other lady tied up on the mattress.

Fat car mechanic/mobster who issues missions in GTA 3, fat PC in Fable I (if you choose) fat NPC boss (Twin Blade) also in Fable I..., Fat Inkeepers and thugs in The Witcher, fat noble in the opening to the Witcher, Fat brother in Freedom Fighters, Mario in Mario....

Top 25 fat guys in games: http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/20...guys-in-games/

How much more do you want?

[Greyblades]

Top 25 fat guys in games: http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/20...guys-in-games/

How much more do you want?

Yeesh, that list is painful, half of those are so one note as to barely count as characters. And really? The best fat character list doesnt have LA Noir's Rusty or Heavy Rain's Scott Shelby?

Christ man if you're going to make a point fine just dont use a list whose first shown character isn't fat.

[Sarmatian]

Just curious, what examples do you have?

It is hard for me to remember specific examples as I don't play games as much as I used to, and most often I play strategy games, which are less likely to feature it. I do play RPG also, and I remember a few cases of bikini armour on females, while the males had more complete pieces.

Even in strategy games, one could find an example or two. In Civilization IV, AI Catherine the Great is openly flirting during diplomacy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is hard for me to remember specific examples as I don't play games as much as I used to, and most often I play strategy games, which are less likely to feature it. I do play RPG also, and I remember a few cases of bikini armour on females, while the males had more complete pieces.

Even in strategy games, one could find an example or two. In Civilization IV, AI Catherine the Great is openly flirting during diplomacy.

Dragon Age and the TES series both regularly feature female armours which while not "bikinis" compromise protection for titilation, usually by removing the gorget and then dropping the neck line of the armour, or by replacing the male breast-and-back with what is essentially an over-bust corset.

What's upsetting about this is that you can make attractive armour for men AND women without compromising it, but male versions are usually the blandly functional whilst female versions are just cosplay.

[CrossLOPER]

GTA 3 was the last game I played, there were three standout "clutter" NPC's in the game, ordinary citizens you could rob, kill etc - they were the hooker, the homo and the old guy in the trenchcoat.

The game rewarded you for beating these people to death and not getting caught.

Yes. It's almost as if there is some sort of goal or challenge in this game. Quite unusual for games to have goals or challenges flavored to match the setting.

In my country, I have never asked myself if I should kill my uncle or cousin for his share of the family fortune. To be fair most of the family fortune is gone and I'm the only son of our Patriarch anyway, so maybe me cousin is plotting to kill me.

What do you think?

I think you somehow managed to sneak nationalist elitism into a conversation about a game where inbred medieval monarchs conspire offing each other.

What would you have them do?

I'll take anyone as long as the person writing it is likely to tell a good story and not sacrifice quality to make a point.

This is why this will never work. The only game I have ever played where homosexuality/bisexuality was inserted in a non-obtrusive way is Phantasmagoria 2: A Puzzle of the Flesh. That is pathetic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you somehow managed to sneak nationalist elitism into a conversation about a game where inbred medieval monarchs conspire offing each other.

What would you have them do?

I have to amuse myself somehow, but my point stands. None of us is going to be standing in for King Herod any time soon, so there's little the game has to teach us which is relevant to real life.

Unless, like me, you enjoy creating a kingdom of Peace and Love whilst everyone else collapses into fratricidal infighting.

[Ironside]

I cannot explain why this is the issue that got people up in arms instead of the previous scandals. I highly suspect it is because AAA developers have PR departments to keep the public outrage to a minimum, departments that indie developers dont have; had Sony, activision, or EA in thier scandals reacted with the blatant contempt of the indies here I believe that this sort of consumer revolt would have happened years ago.
However it is largely immaterial why this is happening now instead of another time, it is happening and if it succeeds gaming media will become forced to adhier to the standards of other fields of journalism.

That's because the digging was a retaliation for being targeted by complains of that the harassment had reached previously unseen levels. You can see it in the combined article series. Every single one of them takes it up in that matter. At this point, two of the women involved had gotten threats of the severe character that they felt the need to leave their homes. One, who's been harassed for years before, so hardly unused to the average threat or harassment.

Looking at it, the complaints about lack of ethics in game journalism was usually leveraged about AAA getting bought reviews and similar stuff. Smaller magazines having connections with indie reviewers is small potato compared to this. That is mainly why it went unnoticed for years before this came up. It is indeed something that should be noted about and that is the reason for the policy changes that came.

One of the fuses are probably the indie games (with female developers...) that are stretching the concept of what a game are (like "Gone Home") and that they got praised in media, since their exploring did expand on what you can achieve with a game (movie reviewer likes that as well). Why exactly this is really upsetting is another question though.

And I argue that it is a pointless argument because there is no harm in allowing grown adults the freedom to do that in thier games. Whether the argument is more violent or sexist the core is that games will influence how people think in significant amounts and if thompson was proven wrong why is it any different for sarkeesian.

Are you familiar with the concept of norms? Norms are what you feel are normal and won't react to. Say that the queen decided to speak Cockney one day, that would feel very weird and probably cause a public outrage. The ones complaining about just wanting to play videogames/watch movies/ read books without politics are in reality referring to the those items should keep to the norm, rather than going outside it (thus becoming "politics"). Media can be created that are intentionally outside the norms, and are less influential on the since you think about it and it's in the open.

Now, how are those norms established? Very few norms are spelled out in the open. And we're hardly born with them. We'll pick them up through friends, family, media etc, etc. The Queen speaking Cockney is a media example for the wast majority of Brits for example. Video games are a media.

Violence in media isn't connected to norms in that way, usually the opposite, the breaking of it is in the open. Now the risk of creating a norm in relation to rescue the princess, isn't rescuing the princess of course. It's a very simple plot, yet is effective (it's lazy and derivative rather than stupid and silly).

Why? You're supposed to care about a loved one of course. The one the hero always ends up with. He always gets the girl. That's in the movies as well. So if you're going to identify yourself as a hero, you better have a girl. Her personality matters way less. And if you don't get a girl, what are you then? The hard part is to get a hold of how much this influences you.

Here's another question, how do you reach the place where concepts such as "Fake geek girls" and "white knight" are sort normalised into valid concepts?

But that's not the only issue; It is in the interest of those that shares her views to dissassociate themselves from her and find a champion who is harder to dismiss. As husar's reaction to sargon of akkad a few weeks ago exhibited: every imperfection be it swearing, tone or presentation will be siezed upon as an excuse to dismiss the entire argument.

Remember that harassment issue? That is a sort of stifling effect. The general criticism on these series are that she's getting the occasional detail wrong and sometimes driving an issue too hard, while at the same time, it's good to have the issue in the open, some points are actually quite good and seeing the sheer numbers are eye opening. She's basically on the level where you'll get some some praise and a fair bit of criticism in a climate where criticism are not controlled by outside factors.

Pulling your neck out will make you life a living hell in many ways, no matter how good you are. That is because the most active ones are mostly either misogynists or very emotionally driven. So that makes it hard for someone wanting to do that.

That is the anti story, GG's story is that they were kicked out for asking questions in a civil manner during a pannel (full recording here)and later the expo called the police on them while they were peacefully congregating outside.

I'll leave determining which is right to the viewer.

Derailment as in taking over the floor and ask questions that aren't fully relevant for the issue at hand. That is quite possible while still being polite. The kickstarter funding and lying to get in are facts.

"...and has harrasment and even worse taken place in the name of this movment? Absolutely. Harrassment and grotesque unconscionable violations of privacy have taken place in defense of figures targeted by the movment as well, proving only that there is not a party in existance that assholes dont turn up to. It doesnt mean you call off the party folks.

"Accusations of harassment are not invalid, not at all, but your problem, may I suggest, is not actually with the movment but with the act of harassment itself[...]The pont is that we see the same behavior at every societal subset and debate from radical femenism to my little pony so why would a divisive issue like gamergate be any different?"

Humour me. If you encounter one of the worst cases of harassment you've ever seen on your sphere of the internet, what should you do? Confront it? Or stay silent on it, while raging in general that internet harassment is bad. If you want to stop it, where do you start?

Yes, I'm implying that this was the case in proto- GG. Its still a relevant question, even if you think its different.

The mere presence of the ability to move around a body does not in and of itself imply any intent of what the players are supposed to do with it. If ms sarkeesian is going to state as fact "players are meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" and is proven absolutely wrong you'll be dissapointed if you expect me or anyone else to pay attention to narrative when presented with such an unacknowledged falsehood.

Let me break it down.
Do you agree that it a game designer choice to make everyone killable? I've been playing more than one shooter or sandbox game where you can find unkillable allies, or get a game over for killing the wrong civilian, so it's not something essential to the game play.
I haven't played the Hitman series, so I need to ask. Can you loose enough points to get a game over that way? Or is going gunzerker also a valid play style, although not optimal?
Are the strippers there to derive pleasure? Cheesecake if you like.
Are you rewarded, although only a minor reward if you move around a body after you've killed the person in question?

If you do place sexualised women (whom you derive pleasure from) in a game where killing them are a valid choice, what are the players meant to do?

Questionable, these developers are dissassociating themselves with thier core costumer base for the promise of a new one. Sure, for a time there will be greater diversity but unless the new customer base proves itself as profitable as the old one the developers will be faced with the choice of switching back or accept being outpaced by the competition and made irrelevant.
Unless you can pad this customer base with enough people to become as profitable as the old base, people willing to keep paying for new products for years to come and wont leave after a fasion, it will devolve to another niche market and become largely ignored by the mainstream.

Games influenced by this and the more general inclusive trend are Saints Row IV, Borderlands II (it had one major issue)+ the Presequel, Farcry 4, as examples. I'm not even sure the consumer base has even noticed this.

A lot of the casual sexism has the same feel as a movie trend where you always has to have a tragic death scene, even in movies were it makes no sense. Embracing it and allowing for that its not for everyone (don't say that you find the sexism in GTA V a bit too much for your taste unless you want a shitstorm), while reducing it when its casual would be a diversification.

For a long time the gaming press did not do this, left to thier own devices a lot of them were found colluding and when it was exposed the companies hiring them did a horrendous job responding; and too many of them responded to valid critiscism with vitriol and contempt and the consumer riot that ensued is hardly surprising and well earned.

Now you're deep into spinning territory. Ignoring the previous chapters of the story are sort of making it obvious.
In particular calling it a consumer riot over ethics in game journalism. Even you are referring to that the major underlying motive is a defensive reaction out of an perceived attack and fear of censorship.

I mean, you started with that Zoe Quinn had taken down a video that pretty much accused her of sleeping around for good game reviews, was a sign of censorship. If someone is slandering me, I'm sort of not going to be nice to that person. But the focus is the CENSORSHIP, not the slandering.

I mean even the starting point of discussing the sex life of someone you don't know is sort of low brow.

GG got kicked out of 4chan through the moderators deleting every post someone made on the topic.

This was unheard of. Normally, every time something like Gamergate happened the mods would merely comb through and remove the illegal stuff (child porn, doxx and swat threads), they did it for chanology, they did it for luzsec, they did it for every operation and anonymous activity before that has been accused of harassment. But this time they were killing all discussion on the subject at the root regardless of if it was a doxxing thread or merely a thread asking what gamergate was.

See, every now and then mods would go nuts and censor left and right and most of the time m00t, the owner, would respond by replacing the moderator with someone less banhappy. But this time it was rampant and m00t said it was his idea and in the face of this most of the site defected to 8chan, which is almost identical but not run by a man who had apparantly only grown a conscience just as gamergate was starting to gain ground.

4chan has kicked out more dubious groups before. So it depends on the narrative. Were GG a group with mostly grievances toward ethics in journalist with some rotten apples, that some unknown journalist called in a favour to m00t to remove or were GG toxic enough for him to go "ehh better not"?

Yup have you read this? Or this?

Crazies be universal. We must strive to see past them because they wont go away if we keep hitting them and ignoring those who have legitimate grievences.

And what do you do if the crazies are running the show? That is sort of the narrative issue with GG. The big names are professional trolls or worse. The most organised part of it are heavily involved in the harassment.

Sad thing is, it was when condemning the other side for thier own groupthink that made me realize my side's own.

Sure, I agree on that the groupthink blinds the perspective. And the spinning, which actually presents the biggest challenge. To avoid the spinning, you need to go outside your regular sources, which is something people dislike to do.

And things like you said about disassociation. It's very relevant, but it also creates a problem. How often do you need to do it and to what? I mean, your links are showing people with shitty behaviour, but at the same time you're equalising a boxing fight between Mike Tyson and a ten year old. "Pick the higher road, ignore the boxer (since no valid alternative methods are in practice). Stating it all the time will take up all the time, while on the other hand even several good statements gets ignored, or a single casual statement aren't really enough (mine here aren't for example).

Calling for the elimination of fanservice however is dumb, reduction of it in serious works is fine and calling for more female directed fanservice is a great idea, but eliminating it altogether will just piss people off and validate accusations of censorship.

And here is sort of a core issue. None of the more prominent has ever said that in this debate. But that is the perception you have taken. If "here is issues that you need to think about and consider and here's why it is an issue" are heard as censorship, how do you hold a debate on the matter?

This is why this will never work. The only game I have ever played where homosexuality/bisexuality was inserted in a non-obtrusive way is Phantasmagoria 2: A Puzzle of the Flesh. That is pathetic.

It's very possible to have it inserted a non-obtrusive way in the background. Simply have it as a offhand reference without anyone thinking it special. Having sexuality as a theme in the game makes it harder though.

[Greyblades]

Ironside, before I reply I wonder if you would be willing to take this one topic at a time? I am fully willing to continue this conversation as we have, but with pvc's lack of response my last big post I'm concerned it is getting too convoluted to follow.

I suggest we pick one of the topics in your last post and focus on it until we reach either a consensus or impass, then we choose another. One quote and one cohesive response would be best. Choice should probably be alternating so as to remain fair and I'm willling to conceed the first choice to you.

[CrossLOPER]

It's very possible to have it inserted a non-obtrusive way in the background. Simply have it as a offhand reference without anyone thinking it special. Having sexuality as a theme in the game makes it harder though.

It had two dudes nearly making out. TWO REAL DUDES.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuhPJgvHYlE

I have to amuse myself somehow, but my point stands. None of us is going to be standing in for King Herod any time soon, so there's little the game has to teach us which is relevant to real life.

Unless, like me, you enjoy creating a kingdom of Peace and Love whilst everyone else collapses into fratricidal infighting.

I think my original post got swallowed or something.

You are telling me that you do not see any value in learning to prioritizing objectives? You don't see any value in dealing with the ambitions of others and balancing them against your own goals? You don't see any value in learning how to balance logistics with dynamically expanding long-term planning?

[Kralizec]

I haven't played the Hitman series, so I need to ask. Can you loose enough points to get a game over that way? Or is going gunzerker also a valid play style, although not optimal?
Are the strippers there to derive pleasure? Cheesecake if you like.
Are you rewarded, although only a minor reward if you move around a body after you've killed the person in question?

In the original Hitman game, killing civilians or policemen (not criminal henchmen, which were considered fair game) resulted in huge writeoffs on the monetary reward you'd get at the end of a mission. This was described in the game as cleaning costs (removing evidence, bribing officials, etc)
You could end a mission with a negative reward this way (IIRC) but if your bank account ever went negative you would receive a message that "your services are no longer required" or something of that effect, and you'd either have to start over or load an earlier savegame.

In the second game of the series the only effect was that the score window at the end of a mission described you as a "sociopath" or a "mass murderer" but there were no penalties otherwise. However to get certain bonus weapons you were required to finish multiple missions as a "Silent Assassin" which was extremely difficult on some missions.

The third game was the same as the second game in this respect, IIRC. To be honest I still think the original game was by far the best, it had some features that should never have been abandoned in the sequels IMO.

[Sir Moody]

In the original Hitman game, killing civilians or policemen (not criminal henchmen, which were considered fair game) resulted in huge writeoffs on the monetary reward you'd get at the end of a mission. This was described in the game as cleaning costs (removing evidence, bribing officials, etc)
You could end a mission with a negative reward this way (IIRC) but if your bank account ever went negative you would receive a message that "your services are no longer required" or something of that effect, and you'd either have to start over or load an earlier savegame.

In the second game of the series the only effect was that the score window at the end of a mission described you as a "sociopath" or a "mass murderer" but there were no penalties otherwise. However to get certain bonus weapons you were required to finish multiple missions as a "Silent Assassin" which was extremely difficult on some missions.

The third game was the same as the second game in this respect, IIRC. To be honest I still think the original game was by far the best, it had some features that should never have been abandoned in the sequels IMO.

To Expand on this a touch - Blood Money (the 4th installment and imo the best) introduced a system where by your score on previous levels determined the "Security" on following levels. If you were as quiet as a mouse security would be reduced - go in loud and security will be enhanced (with one caveat - if you kill every witness (ie the whole map) it would not raise the alert level).

The 5th game Absolution (and the worst imo) is back to score being a bragging right - and even includes online leaderboards - it has zero effect on the game.

[Greyblades]

Yeah absolution wasnt a good hitman game, it was a good game on it's own but it cant stand up to it's predecessors.

Oh and the points might not have an influence on the game but it does have an influence on the player, weak though it is, enough to give an indication on the game's intentions. Still waiting on you Ironside.

[Ironside]

Ironside, before I reply I wonder if you would be willing to take this one topic at a time? I am fully willing to continue this conversation as we have, but with pvc's lack of response my last big post I'm concerned it is getting too convoluted to follow.

I suggest we pick one of the topics in your last post and focus on it until we reach either a consensus or impass, then we choose another. One quote and one cohesive response would be best. Choice should probably be alternating so as to remain fair and I'm willling to conceed the first choice to you.

The mega posts takes a while to compile, so I agree. I think we can divide it into a few major issues and a few semi major. I'll be taking a few quotes on some issues, since they're heavily linked.

One is how deep did the harassment go in the GG movement.
One is why Sarkeesian is the most publically known face and why she is defended on that position.
One is how to deal with spinning and disinformation.
One is whatever Sarkeesian lied about Hitman. Minor, but popular topic, based on the responses.
One is why sexism is supposed to have an influence even on adult people, while violence do not.

If you feel I missed an issue, feel free to mention it.


I say we start with whatever Sarkeesian lied about Hitman, to get it done with, and then proceed with how deep did the harassment go in the GG movement (the most important point).

So:

Let me break it down.
Do you agree that it a game designer choice to make everyone killable? I've been playing more than one shooter or sandbox game where you can find unkillable allies, or get a game over for killing the wrong civilian, so it's not something essential to the game play.
I haven't played the Hitman series, so I need to ask. Can you loose enough points to get a game over that way? Or is going gunzerker also a valid play style, although not optimal?
Are the strippers there to derive pleasure? Cheesecake if you like.
Are you rewarded, although only a minor reward if you move around a body after you've killed the person in question?

If you do place sexualised women (whom you derive pleasure from) in a game where killing them are a valid choice, what are the players meant to do when encountering them? (Whatever they want).
Is an enabling an encouragement or not?

I'm going to add that from what she previously said, she's pushing it as a concept rather than an absolute truth, similar to say the idea of tickle down economics or marxist history. It's obvious that the game isn't "murder stripper simulator 4". But on the other hand, it is enabling it for players who do want to do it, without any major downsides (like game over), are encouraging that behaviour, even if most won't do it.

Yeah absolution wasnt a good hitman game, it was a good game on it's own but it cant stand up to it's predecessors.

Oh and the points might not have an influence on the game but it does have an influence on the player, weak though it is, enough to give an indication on the game's intentions.

Is that less or more than in the previous games? What does that tell you about the game's intentions? I can answer that question for you. That means that going on a killing spree has became a more valid play style. In Hitman 1 it wasn't. In the rest they are, to a different degree (Blood Money encourages you to not mixing them up, as an example).

[Sarmatian]

One is how deep did the harassment go in the GG movement.
One is why Sarkeesian is the most publically known face and why she is defended on that position.
One is how to deal with spinning and disinformation.
One is whatever Sarkeesian lied about Hitman. Minor, but popular topic, based on the responses.
One is why sexism is supposed to have an influence even on adult people, while violence do not.

Without going into any of that point by point, I just want say that gamers inherently react badly to criticism of their favourite pass time.

That is partly a remnant of a time when gaming was still in its infancy. After the very first batch of games which were family oriented mostly (from Pong to Tetris), the next batch allowed gamers to get personally involved. There was often a storyline (however rudimentary), a hero, an enemy or enemies to defeat. It was much more immersive, and, most importantly, it involved gamers committing virtual violence.

Since games are different from other mediums by the fact that you, as a player, have influence on what happens, some started saying that is much more dangerous than other types of entertainment. In movies, irrespective how involved you are with a certain character, you're still a passive observer to that character committing imaginary violence. In games, you're actually committing that imaginary violence. You need to press the button to pull the trigger or swing a sword.

Even before it was expertly scrutinized, conservative voices started a campaign to either limit games availability or even totally ban them.
As gaming was still in its infancy, there was a fear that they may be successful, and gamers fought aggressively, and for a long time, to prove otherwise. That's a big part (imho, the primary reason) why gamers tend to dismiss any criticism out of hand. It helps that gamers are now one of the most well connected social groups globally, and it is fairly easy to "unite" them in defence of gaming, and, likewise, it is extremely difficult to penetrate that group.

I believe that is the reason why other people feel they need to be more sensationalist to get heard, like that Sarkeesian lady. I've seen her giving an interview to Jon Stewart at Daily Show. She was actually likeable and well spoken. She doesn't attack games, in fact, she admitted during that interview that she is a passionate gamer, but she wants games to be less sexist. That's the impression I got.

We are far beyond the point where games could have been taken away from us. The gaming industry has surpassed movie and music industry in size. Games are here to stay and will probably become even a more important part of human life in the future. That means we need at least to allow the discussion about some aspect of games and gaming to be had.

[Greyblades]

We are far beyond the point where games could have been taken away from us. The gaming industry has surpassed movie and music industry in size. Games are here to stay and will probably become even a more important part of human life in the future. That means we need at least to allow the discussion about some aspect of games and gaming to be had.

Perhaps but for such a discussion to occur on a meaningful level we have to feel like we will be listened to, and currently the people who try to initiate fair discussions are being drowned out by people like sarkeesian who are most certainly not listening to us. Gamers can try to keep our own crazies from interrupting but unless the same happens on the other side, as long as the preachers conn-men and spin doctors are allowed to keep poisoning the debate, you will not get anywhere.

'cause here's the thing: sarkeesian and co, the people we rail against, are doing the same things that those conservative voices from long ago were doing. They censor and ridicule thier opponants, use leverage in the popular media to make sure people think gamers are bad, they focus on the minority of idiots and ignore the majority of sane gamners. Thier message might be different but thier methods are the same; shame the enemy into thinking your way. As is thier percived goal: making people change thier creatve works to fit thier percieved view of what is right. The reasoning is different but the goal of this far left movment now is the same as the far right then.

The history of the far right wing attacking gaming has brought the far left a large unquestioning support base among the gaming scene, that's why there's a divide instead of a united front, but a greater popular support doesnt make them any more correct when they try to impose thier world view on a medium people care about.


Sorry ironside, your question deserves the application of a calm mind over a long period of time and at this second I am somewhat... I want to say distracted but it's more like incensed, by the milk thread. I'll get to you by the end of tomorrow.

[Kralizec]

The 5th game Absolution (and the worst imo) is back to score being a bragging right - and even includes online leaderboards - it has zero effect on the game.

That sounds awful.

I might give the 4th installment a shot, the 'security' mechanic you described sounds like a good feature.

[Greyblades]

Let me break it down.
Do you agree that it a game designer choice to make everyone killable? I've been playing more than one shooter or sandbox game where you can find unkillable allies, or get a game over for killing the wrong civilian, so it's not something essential to the game play.
I haven't played the Hitman series, so I need to ask. Can you loose enough points to get a game over that way? Or is going gunzerker also a valid play style, although not optimal?
Are the strippers there to derive pleasure? Cheesecake if you like.
Are you rewarded, although only a minor reward if you move around a body after you've killed the person in question?

If you do place sexualised women (whom you derive pleasure from) in a game where killing them are a valid choice, what are the players meant to do when encountering them? (Whatever they want).
Is an enabling an encouragement or not?

I'm going to add that from what she previously said, she's pushing it as a concept rather than an absolute truth, similar to say the idea of tickle down economics or marxist history. It's obvious that the game isn't "murder stripper simulator 4". But on the other hand, it is enabling it for players who do want to do it, without any major downsides (like game over), are encouraging that behaviour, even if most won't do it.

Is that less or more than in the previous games? What does that tell you about the game's intentions? I can answer that question for you. That means that going on a killing spree has became a more valid play style. In Hitman 1 it wasn't. In the rest they are, to a different degree (Blood Money encourages you to not mixing them up, as an example).

1. I agree it is the creator's choice, but in this case I do not see an alternative. Making civillians invincible would a) ruin the immersion and b) mean that the player would have to restart every time one of them detected him or have to run away from the entire level's armed guards of which there are usually upwards of 30 and heavily armed and armoured, immensely frustrating when shooting the witness before he/she can scream is the logical option yet denied. Removing the civillians completly would also ruin the immersion as most of the levels are set in places that make no sense for thier absence, why would the streets of hongkong have be empty of civillians at all times?
2. Going a gunzerker route is only a valid option when you are able to do it, most levels you start out with a single pistol and 6 rounds, any attempt to go rambo with that will end with you dead quickly and the weaponry available in most levels are on the guards or hidden soemwhat deep into the level making the ability hard to achieve. Running around shooting willy nilly from the offset is a dangerous proposition on all but the easiest difficulties. And no you cannot lose due to a lack of points.
3. Dont know, ask the devs, the level is set in a strip club and it would be an odd strip club without them. You dont need to kill any of them to advance and you can go through the entire level without any of them even knowing you are there.
4. You are rewarded for taking the body to a crate or a cabinate and placing it in there. There is no direct reward or penalty for what you do with it in the mean time but practically the longer you mess around the more likely someone will come across you and raise the alarm.


Inclusion of ability is not inherently encouragement. To prove that you are meant to do something there has to be more the mere absence of built in restriction.

What does going on a killing spree becoming a more valid play style tell me about the game's intentions? Nothing, it only tells me the result not the cause.

The observation tells me capacity has changed, however it tells me nothing concrete about the reasoning or intent. We can insinuate all we want but until there is something certain the idea that the game wants you to kill indiscriminately, or worse discriminatorialy, is no more valid than the idea that the creators are so incompetent that they made the game that way because they were too stupid to make it otherwise.

If you could prove intent through insinuation the gate would be open to no end of absurdities from "you can kill a judge, you dont have to, you're not encouraged to, but you can thus this game encourages killing judges" to "you can kill every man in the game's existance and stand on a pile of thier bodies, you dont have to, you are certainly not encouraged to, but you can thus this game encourages killing all men and piling up thier bodies because it wanst the player to satisfy a primal desire for dominance."

There has to be more than capacity to kill and move npc's to prove the player is meant to "derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" and the game does not provide more.

To become truth sarkeesian's idea requires more than mere insinuation and she does not have it thus making her proclimation that it is "meant" a falsehood.
That is the case for a lot of sarkeesian's objections to the gaming industry and a lot of the far left wing political correctness in general, but the hitman thing is the one that got me to realize how flimsy it all is.

[Sir Moody]

To be honest while I do agree with Anita on the Hitman issue I do think she focused on the lesser of 2 scenes from that mission - the scene immediately prior to that one was far better for her point.

To give some narrative to the people who haven't played it - Agent 47 infiltrates the Strip club to kill the manager and then reach the managers office to acquire some intel. Unlike previous games there is less focus on "creative" killing and it is generally quite linear - in this mission you generally kill a guard in the toilet to get his uniform and gun and then ambush the manager in a private booth. You then sneak past 2 hookers into the private section of the club to climb up to the managers office (sneaking past more hookers and gangsters). Anita focuses on the the 2 hookers prior to the private section while I think the private booth is a much better example of the trope.

Players are encouraged to enter the booth and wait for the manager - when he arrives he proceeds to sexually and then physically assault a hooker - all with the player acting as voyeur. He then is left alone in the booth and the player shoots him through the 1 way mirror. This whole scene is narratively a setup to show you how bad the manager is but also acts to "excite" the player in the act of voyeurism - the hooker is merely background dressing to the entire thing. I think this fits Anitas point FAR better than the 2 hookers you sneak past directly after this.

Inclusion of ability is not inherently encouragement.

I would disagree here - especially in the context of this Hitman mission.

The room in question has 2 places to hide bodies and coincidentally 2 hookers... someone specifically set up the room so that if someone did kill the hookers there would be enough places to hide them without any trouble - thus encouraging players who would do that to do as they please.

[Greyblades]

I would disagree here - especially in the context of this Hitman mission.

The room in question has 2 places to hide bodies and coincidentally 2 hookers... someone specifically set up the room so that if someone did kill the hookers there would be enough places to hide them without any trouble - thus encouraging players who would do that to do as they please.

Sir moody, I fear you are showing a certain ignorance with the game itself:

1. Each crate can take 2 bodies
2. Aside from the 2 strippers (not hookers), there is a guard who patrols the room.
3. In the rooms adjacent where the guard also patrols contain another crate and a closet
4. You do not need to kill a npc to put them in the crate, knocking them out has the same effect however the main downside is that it is a comparatively drawn out choke hold and if a second npc stumbles upon it your cover is blown immediately.
5. The crate is also usable as your own hiding place, the player can climb inside them, meaning they have utility outside of body removal.

I also dont think you are giving the game enough credit towards linearity, I know of two other methods of covert elimination in the level that the player could partake in: either wait for him to go under a faulty disco ball and turn it on to drop it on him, or you can just knock out the guard in the urinal, hide him in the broom closet, garotte the manager when he comes to take a piss and put his body in with the guard. Both methods are just as covert and both are no harder to pull off than the hidden room.

I would mention that the disco ball option becomes very hard if you try a "silent assassin" run, trying to get to the disco ball without being spotted is rather hit or miss, yet the other 2 options are technically impossible to SA.

"This whole scene is narratively a setup to show you how bad the manager is but also acts to "excite" the player in the act of voyeurism" That excitement is an outcome not an intent (it's also highly subjective, not every straight man gets a thrill watching a greasy slob feel up a stripper against her will). The creator could just as easily only wanted to creep out the player and give them impetus to kill the man, the titilation merely an unimportant side effect, what makes your interpritation any more correct than the one I just proposed?

Edit: For the longest time I thought you were ironside. one of you guys might want to change one of your avatars

[Sir Moody]

Sir moody, I fear you are showing a certain ignorance with the game itself:

1. Each crate can take 2 bodies
2. Aside from the 2 strippers (not hookers), there is a guard who patrols the room.
3. In the rooms adjacent where the guard also patrols contain another crate and a closet
4. You do not need to kill a npc to put them in the crate, knocking them out has the same effect however the main downside is that it is a comparatively drawn out choke hold and if a second npc stumbles upon it your cover is blown immediately.
5. The crate is also usable as your own hiding place, the player can climb inside them, meaning they have utility outside of body removal.

I am well aware you can hide 2 in each place which is why I said places to hide 2 - the fact I had forgotten the cupboard (which means 4 places for 3 people) actually proves my point even more - there are more slots for hiding than NPC's which enter the area which implicitly tells the players its ok to cut loose...

That excitement is an outcome not an intent (it's also highly subjective, not every straight man gets a thrill watching a greasy slob feel up a stripper against her will). The creator could just as easily only wanted to creep out the player and give them impetus to kill the man, the titilation merely an unimportant side effect, what makes your interpritation any more correct than the one I just proposed?

You are correct that not everyone will be exited by the act of Voyeurism - I found it creepy as you seem to have as well - but the very fact it is on offer says someone thought it was a good idea to add - meaning the intent was to provide the "enjoyment" of the scene - and more importantly the complete lack of agency on the hookers part illustrates the trope in question.

[Greyblades]

I am well aware you can hide 2 in each place which is why I said places to hide 2 - the fact I had forgotten the cupboard (which means 4 places for 3 people) actually proves my point even more - there are more slots for hiding than NPC's which enter the area which implicitly tells the players its ok to cut loose...


You are correct that not everyone will be exited by the act of Voyeurism - I found it creepy as you seem to have as well - but the very fact it is on offer says someone thought it was a good idea to add - meaning the intent was to provide the "enjoyment" of the scene - and more importantly the complete lack of agency on the hookers part illustrates the trope in question.

Someone's interpritation of a product is not enough to determine the intent of the creator. With the right wording anything a person can do can be seen as having whatever implication you can imagine. There must be more evidence than someone's opinion before you can determine the intention of a person or creative product with any degree of credible certainty.

[Ironside]

I believe that is the reason why other people feel they need to be more sensationalist to get heard, like that Sarkeesian lady. I've seen her giving an interview to Jon Stewart at Daily Show. She was actually likeable and well spoken. She doesn't attack games, in fact, she admitted during that interview that she is a passionate gamer, but she wants games to be less sexist. That's the impression I got.

We are far beyond the point where games could have been taken away from us. The gaming industry has surpassed movie and music industry in size. Games are here to stay and will probably become even a more important part of human life in the future. That means we need at least to allow the discussion about some aspect of games and gaming to be had.

True, some of it has the origin from when games were seen as suspect. Some of it has the origin of a sort of internal victimhood among some geeks and heavy self- identification with gamer as a term. Some of it is a general culture clash between academics and people who aren't familiar with the terms and what concepts they stand for. Privilege is an example. Norms another.

But Sarkeesian isn't really sensationalist compared to the language in academics for example. In general, she's mediocre. Some concepts are driven a bit too hard (like the one we're talking about) and she does some small mistakes here and there. On the pro-side, she a good aggregator in showing how common something is and is finding some tropes that are surprisingly common (having a female begging you to kill her because its too late for her is one example) and not exactly healthy when common. One issue is that she's talking at a basic academics level, while a lot of the viewers are street level on this.

And there's also the issue complaints about sexism in video games makes some batshit insane. This is the incident that spawned the idea of objective game reviews (like know the way that all movie reviews give the same score to a movie).
Short version. Female game reviewer on Gamespot gave the game GTA V only a 9/10 because she felt that it was too much sexism in it for her. Such ideas should be responded by sacking, according to some very loud gamers.

1. I agree it is the creator's choice, but in this case I do not see an alternative. Making civillians invincible would a) ruin the immersion and b) mean that the player would have to restart every time one of them detected him or have to run away from the entire level's armed guards of which there are usually upwards of 30 and heavily armed and armoured, immensely frustrating when shooting the witness before he/she can scream is the logical option yet denied. Removing the civillians completly would also ruin the immersion as most of the levels are set in places that make no sense for thier absence, why would the streets of hongkong have be empty of civillians at all times?
2. Going a gunzerker route is only a valid option when you are able to do it, most levels you start out with a single pistol and 6 rounds, any attempt to go rambo with that will end with you dead quickly and the weaponry available in most levels are on the guards or hidden soemwhat deep into the level making the ability hard to achieve. Running around shooting willy nilly from the offset is a dangerous proposition on all but the easiest difficulties. And no you cannot lose due to a lack of points.

So in summary, occasional deaths are ok. And more accepted than in the original game. Gameplay is a major part on how it ended up like that.

3. Dont know, ask the devs, the level is set in a strip club and it would be an odd strip club without them. You dont need to kill any of them to advance and you can go through the entire level without any of them even knowing you are there.

I would say yes. The choice of a strip club as the level is sort of demanding strippers. And a major reason for why strippers/prostitutes are so popular is that you can get sex while also setting the mood (as in "gritty mood").

The observation tells me capacity has changed, however it tells me nothing concrete about the reasoning or intent. We can insinuate all we want but until there is something certain the idea that the game wants you to kill indiscriminately, or worse discriminatorialy, is no more valid than the idea that the creators are so incompetent that they made the game that way because they were too stupid to make it otherwise.

Most sexism are in the category of them being too non-reflective to make it otherwise.

If you could prove intent through insinuation the gate would be open to no end of absurdities from "you can kill a judge, you dont have to, you're not encouraged to, but you can thus this game encourages killing judges" to "you can kill every man in the game's existance and stand on a pile of thier bodies, you dont have to, you are certainly not encouraged to, but you can thus this game encourages killing all men and piling up thier bodies because it wanst the player to satisfy a primal desire for dominance."

If it would be unique, sure. If that would be a big trend, its an odd coincidence though. Even if each individual game has valid reasons for doing so. And she talking very much in trends with examples, rather than each game for itself.

To become truth sarkeesian's idea requires more than mere insinuation and she does not have it thus making her proclimation that it is "meant" a falsehood.
That is the case for a lot of sarkeesian's objections to the gaming industry and a lot of the far left wing political correctness in general, but the hitman thing is the one that got me to realize how flimsy it all is.

Social science. "This theory is correct because of this and that.
Nope, you've totally gotten this and that wrong. It means something else."

It's a messy field and most of it is going to end up as being called wrong in the end.

Someone's interpritation of a product is not enough to determine the intent of the creator. With the right wording anything a person can do can be seen as having whatever implication you can imagine. There must be more evidence than someone's opinion before you can determine the intention of a person or creative product with any degree of credible certainty.

Depends on what level you're asking the question. The level you are talking: Their concious intent. Or the level where their intent starts to become less relevant. In that one, the question aren't if the intent was voyeurism or the make you creeped out. It was why choosing that scene in either case? "Meant" is supposed to be read at this level, not at the concious intent. Or at least that the concious intent doesn't need to be stronger than finding out that this was possible and then go "working as intended". She's setting that interpretation up previously.
Hmm, this is actually a core thing, you're on the blunt level, while the argument is mostly on the more blurry levels like symbolism and subconscious thinking.

It is a weak argument as you pointed out with the insinuations and a weaker statement would've been better, but it's a difference between finding your opponents argument weak/wrong and that it would be an outright lie.

It's blurry as heck, but it also something there. The culture thing that make nationalists talk about "British culture", while trying to define it ends up in a mess.

[Greyblades]

1 quote 1 answer remember?
I'll still reply in a day or two, but as I said I would prefer to keep it simple.

Also could you change one of your avatars? I'm getting you mixed up with sir moody and I'd rather not get mixed up who said what.