Only thing about the Quinn-Conspiracy worth any salt was the bust-up with The Fine Young Capitalists, from all appearances.
Printable View
Only thing about the Quinn-Conspiracy worth any salt was the bust-up with The Fine Young Capitalists, from all appearances.
*cracks fingers*
I can see how that would be an impossible task, good thing that was not what I was referring to: Prove that Nathan grayson wasnt in a relationship with zoe quinn before or during the writing of this article, or prove that he clearly stated his relationship in said article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
If either of those was proven at the start and maybe gamergate would still be the petty internet drama Anti GG want you to think it is. Alas it remained ambiguous long enough for the investigations of the internet to uncover more instances like it and now you have a whole list of suspected collaberations between journalists and developers to disprove if you want it to go away.
Hey Husar, remember when I told you this:
Take out the insults on language, add in a dose of swearing and misrepresentation, intentional or otherwise. With that I give you exhibit A:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
To give him credit the rest is somewhat less counterproductive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I assume you meant to say buy and not bug. To be new to the scene is not an issue, it's that she made a false claim on a game she herself apparantly played and not admit to it when caught that encompasses the main problem with her, makes the audience think she's full of it.Quote:
The question over whether Anita Sarkeesian was a "real gamer" wasn't entirely baseless, but is someone starts a kickstarter to bug consoles and games that implies they don't already have their own gear, doesn't it?
I think she is but that's a matter of opinion.
Dude, dont generalize, whether or not that appraisal is true makes no difference to the situation she created.Quote:
As to her points, well, limited value to be honest, but the backlash against her was largely perpetrated by people who just want more titties in games.
I dont care about it being art, I care that someone is calling for change in an entire industry over petty social politics and using underhanded tactics to make it happen.Quote:
Now, let's be clear here, this is a general problem with media today, you only have to watch Game of Thrones to see that a lot of big budget mass-media is directed to hook the lowest common denominator, and GoT is really just a mix of softcore porn and soap opera now, which is not a terrible thing but the big budget doesn't make it a big piece of art.
As much as the Anti's like to use the term in irony, a lot of GG is actually about gamer ethics. Notice that those attacking GG rarely want to actually address it, either to confirm or deny such occurances. Using deflection to steer the conversation away, sometimes arguing the relevance but never arguing the content.Quote:
A final thought for you, the original "Quinspiracy" is pretty much the plot of a 90's Playboy/Skinemax softcore porno, without the final denouncement where the seductress (Quinn) is finally caught out and gets bad reviews for the game
Both sides do it, I dare say every side in every controvertial political debate does, but the anti side is the one that wants everyone to think it upright and good while GG are a bunch of uncooth thugs, yet they keep going to thier opponants level again and again and again.
If I may, who do you hear your information about GamerGate from?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The edge of harassment is towards feminists. It heavily outnumber the average harassment noise. It's underlying the entire conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Disabling comments one of the things that get mostly ignored, unless you have an axe to grind.
Mess around= Move around in this case. Makes a stronger visual imagery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
It would diversify the market. Some games would have more. Most less. That would be a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It's worth remembering that at this point, something like 99% of the active harassment is still towards Zoe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Schreier from Kotaku in the comments
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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.
It gets ignored into trolls will be trolls and thus it "disappears".
"Why do you find those guys evil?"
"They kidnap children and eat them."
"Psh, boys will be boys. Show me something bad about them."
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I read articles from 'both sides', but it seems whatever the actual valid points actually were got lost in the wades of sewage which made the only logical response of 'stay away from it or get covered in it'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
What are you, 12?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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"
I wonder how many guys I ruthlessly gunned down with little to no repercussions. Oh wait, no one actually cared about that because its a video game and the only people who complained were people who didn't actually play games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Nothing that Sarkeesian actually says is particularly enlightening or interesting. She bluntly refuses to address any rebuttals, and often repeats points that are either subjective or circumstantial. She's basically the Food Babe (http://foodbabe.com/) of the gaming industry.
Sarkeesian does seem like a bit of a fruitcake, which is sad, because, let's face it, there's a quite a bit of sexism in games and it is an issue that should be at least discussed. Most gamers, unfortunately, refuse flat out to admit there's an issue at all.
Just curious, what examples do you have?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
When was the last time you saw a fat female character in a computer game who have significant dialogue?
I don't agree with your position, but to be fair you make a good case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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)
Borderlands 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Yes, was one of those rare examples where it occurs in a 'popular' title. :sad: If you said "name 3", I would be really stuck, as I cannot even think of a second...
Does playing GTA turn you into a callous neckbeard, or does being a callous neckbeard turn you to GTA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I was kind of with you until:Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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"
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
I'll leave determining which is right to the viewer.
Quote:
The edge of harassment is towards feminists. It heavily outnumber the average harassment noise. It's underlying the entire conversation.
Quote:
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.
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:Quote:
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.
"...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
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.Quote:
Disabling comments one of the things that get mostly ignored, unless you have an axe to grind.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
It would diversify the market. Some games would have more. Most less. That would be a good thing.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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".
Of course it's hard to prove you dont have a bias when you do.Quote:
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.
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.
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."Quote:
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.
With evidence like this combined with deletions of prevfious articles that justscreamed coverup it became undisputable.
GG got kicked out of 4chan through the moderators deleting every post someone made on the topic.Quote:
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.
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.
Yup have you read this? Or this?Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Pick from this list of types of individuals you would like to appear in your video games:Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
The game rewarded you for beating these people to death and not getting caught.
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.Quote:
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.
What do you think?
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....Quote:
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Christ man if you're going to make a point fine just dont use a list whose first shown character isn't fat.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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.
I think you somehow managed to sneak nationalist elitism into a conversation about a game where inbred medieval monarchs conspire offing each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
What would you have them do?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Unless, like me, you enjoy creating a kingdom of Peace and Love whilst everyone else collapses into fratricidal infighting.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Yes, I'm implying that this was the case in proto- GG. Its still a relevant question, even if you think its different.
Let me break it down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
Now you're deep into spinning territory. Ignoring the previous chapters of the story are sort of making it obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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).
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
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.
It had two dudes nearly making out. TWO REAL DUDES.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuhPJgvHYlE
I think my original post got swallowed or something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
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?
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)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
'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.
That sounds awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
I might give the 4th installment a shot, the 'security' mechanic you described sounds like a good feature.
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?Quote:
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).
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.
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.
I would disagree here - especially in the context of this Hitman mission.Quote:
Inclusion of ability is not inherently encouragement.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
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
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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").Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Most sexism are in the category of them being too non-reflective to make it otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Social science. "This theory is correct because of this and that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
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.
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.
for the sake of clarity - your wish is my command...Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Thanks.
I'll address the rest tomorrow as I have been extremely distracted by the milk thread and now I have family matters to attend to, but this is rather pertinent:
Being called a Brit isnt considered an insult except to the irish, being called sexist is an insult to everyone (British culture can also be whatever we are willing to make it be. Rather an apropriate comparison to what sexism has become, but I digress.) and the societal effects of being accused have become extremely damaging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
The accusation of sexist is a verbal nuke. Sarkeesian and many liker have been throwing it about incessantly on the blurry, messy and outright flimsy foundation that is a selective interpritation of a wide subset of media.
It gives a similar effect as the boy crying wolf; any credibility the accusation might once have had is diminished by it's repeated utterance on such a weak platform. The point doesnt have enough proof to stick while at the same time the subject of the accusation and those who associate with them not already a believer becomes polarised against it.
That is why ms sarkeesian's arguments, above all else, are counterproductive to her very movment, when the sexism button is falsely pressed so often people stop believeing the legitimate cases.
Yes, but you are dodging the real issue. You're arguing how she was wrong to label that part of the game sexist, not whether there is sexism in game industry.
Ahem:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
One thing at a time, and he chose this first. Plus, burden of proof is upon the accuser, gamers dont have to prove anything merely successfully refute the case laid against us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Well I said I'd respond to the rest today, and so I will:
Anonyminity on the internet means that anyone can essentially claim to be anything, but despite the claims the harassers are not a fair representation of gamers,a community in the 100's of millions of people, or even of the supporters of gamergate, whose only real criteria for entry is "want to stop the people we rely on for news and reviews colluding for cash"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
We cannot gain any sense that the creator considered it "ok" from the mere fact that it is not a fail state, the points system indicates the opposite.Quote:
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.
Which is false because strip clubs are not bordellos, "look dont touch", the strippers in a legal strip club have no obligation to have sex with anyone.Quote:
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").
And too obtuse to catch without rigerous training apparantly. Subliminal might be a thing, but a lot of this is on the far end of so imperceptable as to be asbsurd.Quote:
Most sexism are in the category of them being too non-reflective to make it otherwise.
Trends which are neither strong or widespread enough to make concrete value judgments on a buisness sector larger than hollywood and a worldwide community with a population around that of india, yet she does it anyway and her evidence is obviously shakey.Quote:
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.
So, why is this theory being so clung to?Quote:
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.
The blurriness does not excuse such a flagrant misrepresentation of the game. All her arguments are weak but the hitman one is the most objectively wrong and dishonest: the game/developer cannot be proven to want you to kill and manipulate these women, the score system is quite clear in it's opposition to that and not preventing the possibility of the player doing something cannot be a deciding indication of the devs' intending the player to do anything.Quote:
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.
Of a 20 mission game she picks out the 1 mission with a strip club, she goes out of her own way to beat up those strippers and drag around the bodies for a 20 second clip, it didnt come from another player's lets play or anything it was her footage. The game is very clear with the points system that it doesn't condone the player doing anything to them.
She wants us to conclude that "the player cannot help but treat these female bodes as things to be acted upon because they were designed constucted and placed in the enviroment for that singular purpose, the player is meant to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" but when her clip is compared to the actual game and the multitude of lets plays of the level on youtube at the time it does not corroberate her viewpoint in the least. Her statements shows she either missed the game's point completely or she went out of her way to make a clip that she knew was misrepresenting the game in an attempt to support her point.
Certainly. But that group exists, is very noisy and is one part of the atmosphere when talking about these issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
We can gain the sense that it's quite a bit above intolerable, since you normally don't include things you're borderline with and certainly not things you find intolerable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It's in a computer game. Unless you have some super-special equipment on your gaming rig, it's only "look dont touch" there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I admit I phrased it poorly, "get sex" should've been "get the sexy", as in making sexually titillating women in a game is intended to be sexually titillating.
A major issue is that people want to have things that they like to be non-problematic even when they are problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Take the chainmail bikini as an example. Is it sexist? Yes. If you disagree with that part, would you say that if that's the only gear for female characters, would that be sexist? Can you find a woman in chainmail bikini attractive without being a sexist? Yes, but a lot of people act like they think its impossible (Sarkeesian doesn't, that's why she states that it's ok to like problematic media all the time). And since people don't want to feel like they could possibly be sexist (and a lot of the time they aren't), they resort to chainmail bikinis aren't sexist (because they like them).
It's a scale, yet a lot of people act like the lower scale is completely unrelated to the upper scale. Part of the problem is that the chainmail bikini is something else than simply sexy, yet the only word that are on that scale is sexist.
In general? It blatantly obvious that it's there. It's not universal, but it's there. And not really sublime, unless you choose to overlook it. Take the original art for Divinity: Original Sin. It did not occur to the maker that having a chainmail bikini warrior next to a armoured male warrior is sort of sexist. It got changed after PC brigade complaints.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Because it's the details rather than the general theory that's blurry. The direct influence of killing prostitutes in a video game is hard to measure. But the general media exposure is notable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Role models are an actual thing and people will take after, even if they're glorified eye candy (Italy got an issue with this after Berlusconi).
Chainmail bikinis as normal is talked about above.
Media is shown to be a major part of influencing norm behaviour.
Add in some facts that females are generally considered as less normative (thus creating that 66% male 33% female are seen as the fair 50/50) are facing a lot more harassment in general, in particular the sexual harassment.
It's coming from somewhere.
We're starting to go in circles. But this is mixing up intentional sexism and casual sexism again. The argument she does in the context she's made before is that we are on casual sexism level, even if the statement by itself would be red as intentional sexism (which I agree would be incorrect. Parts of it is intentional, but the whole is not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
To take an example. Having a female protagonist are very rare compared to a male protagonist (we'll exclude the "pick you gender" type here) and has never been equal in number. Clearly there is a selection process here, even if it is unconscious. This influences marketing. Since women protags are rare, clearly the market doesn't want female protags (this thinking is real and affects funding). This thinking creates gender discrimination, yet no single game is to blame. So without any intentional move, you have discrimination.
To show this and to counter it, it's pretty much impossible to talk about the devs' proven intentions, since each case you look at won't show gender discrimination. It's only taken as a whole and in context, it becomes obvious.
The second picture looks far better in my opinion aesthetically as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
*sigh* Ok I see this is getting nowhere. The hitman thing was to prove that anita sarkeesian is a liar, if she was a liar she was useless to the feminist cause due to being considered as irreperably biased by gamers.
However the definition of lie has apparantly become subjective these days, and there is an easier way to show how she alienates the people feminism must convert.
Thus:
1. She has shown herself ignorant of the things she preaches about:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/521781974017388544
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/561761720834592768
2. She used a tragedy to push her agenda:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/525793436025118721
Said on the same day as a mass shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marysvi...chool_shooting
3. She has shown disrespect for the dead.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/148217327236808704
Christopher hitchens had died three days before.
4. She has stated she believes men cannot be disciminated against:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533445611543363585
I could go on but the point is clear: ms sarkeesian has no concept of Public Relations and is a detriment to the goal of presuading gamers to your side. I am once again annoyed that it took this bloody long for me to figure out arguing the minutia is pointless.
1a) The fact the character was designed by a Woman doesn't change the fact Bayonetta is the personification of several Male fantasies - I am really unsure what are you are driving at here?
1b) Again she is stating a fact. Peach saves Mario a few times only to be relegated to DiD sometimes in the very same game... so she is 2 for 2 on stating obvious facts...
2) Shes actually right here - the fact we don't see Women mass shooters does suggest we have a problem in Male culture which is creating these monsters - I don't agree with her that it is "Toxic Masculinity" (primarily because thats far to generic a term for way too many cultural facets) but the point stands.
3) And? Hitchens was all she said - just because they are dead doesn't mean we should revere them and ignore their faults... I am pretty sure you have criticised a number of dead people in any number of threads - does this make all your arguments invalid? even when they are totally unrelated?
4) this one is difficult - technically she is right, she is using the technical definition of Sexism - she is not saying Men cannot be discriminated against only that any Discriminations men suffer cannot be Sexist as they hold the power. Personally I think the term Sexist has grown beyond its technical definition and now means any Discrimination which is purely based on Sex.
Bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
I wasnt driving at anthing in particular with the first 2, I was baiting, and I am somewhat dissapointed that I hooked the moderate and not the fringe.
Still, while we're here, why is it a bad thing that the damsel in distress exist? Why would the fact that bayonetta is as she is be worth of comment?
Your point, not hers, and her point is a rather blatant correlation equals causation fallacy, combine that with the date coinciding with a massacre it tells the people reading "I have an agenda and I dont care if I anger people who are mourning this tragedy by using it to prove a petty (in comparison) point"Quote:
2) Shes actually right here - the fact we don't see Women mass shooters does suggest we have a problem in Male culture which is creating these monsters - I don't agree with her that is is "Toxic Masculinity" (primarily because thats far to generic a term for way too many cultural facets) but the point stands.
Which is a very counterproductive thing to do if she had any wish to persuade anyone outside her followers.
Hitchens was dead not 3 days and this woman comes out and blasts him, true or not it is highly disrespectfulQuote:
3) And? Hitchens was all she said - just because they are dead doesn't mean we should revere them and ignore their faults... I am pretty sure you have criticised a number of dead people in any number of threads - does this make all your arguments invalid? even when they are totally unrelated?
And again a very counterproductive thing to do if she had any wish to persuade anyone outside her followers.
The oxford English dictionary defines sexism as: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.Quote:
4) this one is difficult - technically she is right, she is using the technical definition of Sexism - she is not saying Men cannot be discriminated against only that any Discriminations men suffer cannot be Sexist as they hold the power. Personally I think the term Sexist has grown beyond its technical definition and now means any Discrimination which is purely based on Sex.
Typically but not exclusively, and there's nothing about this prejudice+power in it, by claiming otherwise ms sarkeesian is validating the often mentioned idea that feminists are attempting to rewrite language to suit their purposes... Actually now that I think about it why is there be any need for the "Typically women" bit?
The intent of the last 3 was to establish how little ms sarkeesian seems to care about avoiding the stereotypes of the crazy feminist.
See I dont mind the moderate stuff, I wouldnt mind seeing more games geared towards women, I like equality, I shouldnt have to say it but I do, however the impression we get from anita is that she wont stop at equality, she keeps attacking things geared towards men as if they must be eliminated.
She keeps reading too far into things and assuming the worst intent; "no its not a cliche that comes from the natural desire of young men to be a hero and by doing so earn the affection of a mamber of the oppsite sex, it's an insulting convention that is made to degrade women." "No it's not the creator trying to pander to immature young men by giving them some pretty women, it must be the male developers systematically objectifying women and making young men think of the opposite sex as objects. "
It's as if she's willfully misintepriting companies pandering to male immaturity as oppressing women.
Instead of asking for more to be made for women she is shaming people with the seeming intent that less be made for men, and surely, cant the market grow to accomidate both?
If most Feminists want equality, that's great, I'd love to see it, but to uplift themselves they shouldnt have to drag men down to do it, and the impression that is given when people like sarkeesian keep showing up in the news or on television instead of moderates is that all feminists want to do so.
I don't understand who you actually wanted to bait. The Org is generally a moderate discussion board. I would have answered it in the same way as Moody, but he saved me the trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It's very hard to be a moderate when most people don't even perceive a problem. You have been consistently arguing "how she says stuff" instead of "why she says stuff". You didn't acknowledge that there is an issue to discuss here - you tried to discredit her rather than admit it. Since that failed, you've been consistently "upping the ante", coming with all new ways to show just how wrong her examples were. That just put you on a downward spiral.Quote:
If most Feminists want equality, that's great, I'd love to see it, but to uplift themselves they shouldnt have to drag men down to do it, and the impression that is given when people like sarkeesian keep showing up in the news or on television instead of moderates is that all feminists want to do so.
When we reach the point that majority of people understand that there is a problem, there won't be need for people like Sarkeesian any more, and moderates will take over.
And it seems my bait has worked in a roundabout fashion: hanging back and showing up only when it seems that the moderates have put the opposition on the defensive. Congratulations, despite your belief, you are the fringe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Or maybe I did that because the idea that games can affect human behavior is a false assumption that was discredited in the age of jack thompson and I no longer felt like bashing my head against the brick wall that was proving a lie to ironside. Thus did I attempt something to end the monotony and caught a rather smug fish.Quote:
It's very hard to be a moderate when most people don't even perceive a problem. You have been consistently arguing "how she says stuff" instead of "why she says stuff". You didn't acknowledge that there is an issue to discuss here - you tried to discredit her rather than admit it.
Of course, neither your explanation, or mine, of my action's intent can be proven to the level of satisfaction that will break through any observer's particular prejudices, which funnily enough was my point during my bout with ironside.
You got precident for that assumption? 'cause way I see it if you keep letting her get center stage you wont ever get to that point.Quote:
When we reach the point that majority of people understand that there is a problem, there won't be need for people like Sarkeesian any more, and moderates will take over.
To explain I must modify something I said earlier:
"For the gaming industry to shift the developers cannot just dissassociate 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 preexisting gamers, the same people Sarkeesian is apparantly uninterested in talking with, though for that matter she seems uninterested in talking to anyone who doesn't already believe.
Good cop-Bad cop requires an actual good cop, and only the bad cop has reached mainstrean television.
Sorry Ironside, but Husar has made me tired of arguing minutia, and this guy had been bugging me all thead.
Que?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Everything affects human behavior. The time I spend as a kid playing a game called Civilization got me interested into history, geography, politics and economy, personally.Quote:
Or maybe I did that because the idea that games can affect human behavior is a false assumption that was discredited in the age of jack thompson and I no longer felt like bashing my head against the brick wall that was proving a lie to ironside. Thus did I attempt something to end the monotony and caught a rather smug fish.
Nonsense. Prejudices break all the time, when society awareness becomes large enough.Quote:
Of course, neither your explanation, or mine, of my action's intent can be proven to the level of satisfaction that will break through any observer's particular prejudices, which funnily enough was my point during my bout with ironside.
This reminded me of a conversation I had with some friends about Gay Pride parade in Serbia a couple of years ago. They were all understanding of gay people, at least that's how they tried to portray themselves but in reality were intolerant.Quote:
You got precident for that assumption? 'cause way I see it if you keep letting her get center stage you wont ever get to that point.
"I don't mind gay people, but why do they have to have a parade?"
That question is actually the reason why they have to have a parade. When we get to a point when a parade is announced and everybody goes "Meh, I don't care" and go about their business, that will be the last Gay Pride parade.
History is full of precedents. Whenever a movement is excluded from the main stream and ignored, it tends to radicalize.
And that would be wrong.Quote:
To explain I must modify something I said earlier:
"For the gaming industry to shift the developers cannot just dissassociate 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."
It assumes gamers play games because there is sexism in them.
I don't care about Sarkeesian. Why are you under this assumption that this is about her? You don't like the messenger, so you're ignoring the message?Quote:
The people most suited to pad that base are the preexisting gamers, the same people Sarkeesian is apparantly uninterested in talking with, though for that matter she seems uninterested in talking to anyone who doesn't already believe.
Who is "this guy"? Me? I've been bugging you all thread?Quote:
Sorry Ironside, but Husar has made me tired of arguing minutia, and this guy had been bugging me all thead.
Well, fringe, or maybe a person less prone to pedantry, I can't tell these days but oddly enough it is refreshing, I think I am going to enjoy this more than husar and ironside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
And did it give you an instictual hatred of Ghandi's india?Quote:
Everything affects human behavior. The time I spend as a kid playing a game called Civilization got me interested into history, geography, politics and economy, personally.
Did it make you believe that all the other nationalities in the world serve only as vassals or targets of conquest?
Because the idea that games like bayonetta encourages sexism is based upon the same logic that civilization encourages nationalism, and the idea of altering civilization to take out the nationalist "elements" is just as absurd.
Perhaps a better word would have been preconceptions, less of the overly negative connotations prejudice has earned over the years as an accusation.Quote:
Nonsense. Prejudices break all the time, when society awareness becomes large enough.
When a group is fighting for equal rights under the law everyone who believes in equal rights cheers, but once the equal rights issue has ended in thier success and they go on to demand more, that people themselves change thier own views to conform with thiers, that's when the support evaporates.Quote:
This reminded me of a conversation I had with some friends about Gay Pride parade in Serbia a couple of years ago. They were all understanding of gay people, at least that's how they tried to portray themselves but in reality were intolerant.
"I don't mind gay people, but why do they have to have a parade?"
That question is actually the reason why they have to have a parade. When we get to a point when a parade is announced and everybody goes "Meh, I don't care" and go about their business, that will be the last Gay Pride parade.
History is full of precedents. Whenever a movement is excluded from the main stream and ignored, it tends to radicalize.
People are entitled to thier opinion, despite the derision that phrase has endured, and when the only proof of the need for a parade is that people question "Why do they have to have a parade" instead of a legitimate injustice, the people doing it come off not as a wronged party but a bunch of agitators looking for any reason to protest no matter how petty
Not giving up until everyone thinks like you, tell me if you didnt agree with them, would you tolerate such things?
Would you tolerate without protest, say, a vegan group who wont stop protesting until everyone stops disagreeing that meat is murder? Or an animal Right's group that wont go away until everyone says they agree that fur and leather are evil? Or perhaps a Yugoslavian Nationalist who wont stop getting in your face?
Also, isn't, "meh, I dont care" only said when someone wants to ignore something?
Tell me, are you sure it is sexist because you could see it on your own or did you need someone else to explain why it is sexist? And if you needed for it to be explained to you, what makes you think the people who consume it are any more aware of the connotations? The Jack Thompson debacle put to rest the idea that games can affect behavior subliminaly so if they are not aware of it, why does it matter?Quote:
And that would be wrong.
It assumes gamers play games because there is sexism in them.
What you call sexist the rest of the world calls pandering to adolescence and immaturity in men, which despite the protests is not inheriently oppressive to women.
If the message is that male orientated games should be neutered to accomodate women then I most certainly have not been ignoring the message.Quote:
I don't care about Sarkeesian. Why are you under this assumption that this is about her? You don't like the messenger, so you're ignoring the message?
Strawman aside I dont see the interpriations of tropes as reason to edit games popular fiction shouldnt be censored to accomidate those the fiction isnt targeting and I find it abhorrant to shame creators into carrying out that censorship or to shame people for enjoying something that is literaly harmless.
I believe the problem is that the gaming industry does not produce enough material directed at women and needs to make more, the gaming industry can grow to accomidate that just like the movie industry and like the movie industry it does not have to ditch the stuff directed towards men to do it.
My understanding of the industry is that right now a large part of the gaming industry is geared towards men because men are it's main moneymaker, they concist of a majority of the consumer base and buy the most games. With time and encouragment the gaming industry can grow to accomidate womens interests as well but currently the female part of the consumer base is not large enough to make the same amount of money as the male. Most gaming devs wont make games if they would be unprofitable and to make female orientated games as profitable as male ones the gaming industry has to draw in more women into gaming.
That will be a slow process and the games that bring them in will still have to sell enough copies to keep the makers afloat and interested, and to do that the first projects will need to also attract some men just to break even.
You should care about sarkeesian because she is actively sabotaging this, attacking men's media with absurd assertions that games want the player "to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the bodies of unsuspecting virtual female characters" based on mere interpritation, combine that with a lack self control in exploiting tragedy and an attitude bordering on mysandry resulting in a talking head that alienates the consumer base and in doing so making the growth she apparantly wants harder to accomplish.
I would say you need a MLK to this Malcom X, but I fear malcom would take it as an insult.
If I may ask this random unrelated question: How many male prostitutes does GTA have?
None, that I know of and I predict your intepritation of the reason why is going to be full of bad implications that you will think is the only reason.
I wouldnt mind seeing some included, but neither the creator or consumer deserves to be judged as anything for it's lack, nor is the idea that thier absence inadverntently encourages homophobia or whatever correct.
No, because the game doesn't encourage you to hate Gandhi. Strategy games are less personal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It is harder to notice when you're not experiencing it yourself.Quote:
When a group is fighting for equal rights under the law everyone who believes in equal rights cheers, but once the equal rights issue has ended in thier success and they go on to demand more, that people themselves change thier own views to conform with thiers, that's when the support evaporates.
People are entitled to thier opinion, despite the derision that phrase has endured, and when the only proof of the need for a parade is that people question "Why do they have to have a parade" instead of a legitimate injustice, the people doing it come off not as a wronged party but a bunch of agitators looking for any reason to protest no matter how petty
In this case, with "I don't care" I meant the literal meaning.Quote:
Also, isn't, "meh, I dont care" only said when someone wants to ignore something?
There are three cases (that I know of, maybe there's more) in which murders were committed by kids or adolescent males where they themselves admitted they did because they were inspired by GTA.Quote:
Tell me, are you sure it is sexist because you could see it on your own or did you need someone else to explain why it is sexist? And if you needed for it to be explained to you, what makes you think the people who consume it are any more aware of the connotations? The Jack Thompson debacle put to rest the idea that games can affect behavior subliminaly so if they are not aware of it, why does it matter?
In 2003, Devin Smith, a 16 year old, was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle. After being taken into custody, he took the gun from police officers, shot and killed three. He showed no remorse later and said "Life is a game. You've got to die sometimes." GTA fan.
An 8 year old played GTA in 2013, and shot his grandmother in the back of her head. Investigators discovered that just prior to the shooting, he was playing GTA.
A 14 year old boy, Eldon Samuel, admitted to a premeditated murder of his father and brother. He shot his father three times in the head and shot his brother four times with a shotgun and failed to kill him. After that, he stabbed his brother several times. He later admitted he was inspired by Trevor from GTA V, and wanted to emulate him.
Also, The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychiatric Association and The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, all believe there is a causal link between violent virtual behavior and real world violence.
If there is a link between violence in games and violence in real life, it is logical enough to assume there is a link between sexism in games and sexism in real life.
Maybe all those cases are coincidences, maybe top medical and psychiatry association got it all wrong, but it is enough for me to seriously consider what they have to say.
I recind my assensment, you are fringe. Drinking the "games make you violent and sexist, except the ones I play" Kool-aid with gusto.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Hi, gamer here.Quote:
It is harder to notice when you're not experiencing it yourself.
Our community has been constantly threatened by a moarlistic minority who have been trying to censor my media, something I care about, for decades.
We were and still are judged for liking something other people dont, the right used to call us murderers in waiting and now the left call us mysogynists.
The only thing keeping censorship away has been an earnest effort by the majority of our community to dispell the fearmongering that has seeped into the mass media and only recently are we being accepted by the mainstream as something other than a tickng timebomb, we still have to work on the mysigynistic pigs thing but we'll get there all the same. .
And he goes and ignores everything I have been sayingQuote:
In this case, with "I don't care" I meant the literal meaning.
Hey, @Ironside, @Husar, @Sir Moody, you know when I mentioned the Horseshoe theory? That the far right and far left are closer related to eachother than the center? This is what I meant.:
The guy who has been supporting you with thanks and snide comments has just gone full Jack Thompson.Quote:
There are three cases (that I know of, maybe there's more) in which murders were committed by kids or adolescent males where they themselves admitted they did because they were inspired by GTA.
In 2003, Devin Smith, a 16 year old, was arrested for driving a stolen vehicle. After being taken into custody, he took the gun from police officers, shot and killed three. He showed no remorse later and said "Life is a game. You've got to die sometimes." GTA fan.
An 8 year old played GTA in 2013, and shot his grandmother in the back of her head. Investigators discovered that just prior to the shooting, he was playing GTA.
A 14 year old boy, Eldon Samuel, admitted to a premeditated murder of his father and brother. He shot his father three times in the head and shot his brother four times with a shotgun and failed to kill him. After that, he stabbed his brother several times. He later admitted he was inspired by Trevor from GTA V, and wanted to emulate him.
Also, The American Psychological Association, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Psychiatric Association and The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, all believe there is a causal link between violent virtual behavior and real world violence.
If there is a link between violence in games and violence in real life, it is logical enough to assume there is a link between sexism in games and sexism in real life.
Maybe all those cases are coincidences, maybe top medical and psychiatry association got it all wrong, but it is enough for me to seriously consider what they have to say.
I cant believe my bait actually worked, holy crap.
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/3b/3b6d...83541feee7.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I don't know if you're trying to practice your debate skills and are trying to work out if ignoring the point and making another one make you appear right or smart, but I can tell you that it is failing, at least with me. Maybe it works on some of those reading this, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Not all games have sexism in them, just like not all games are violent.
Also, a "causal link" between violence/sexism in games and in real life doesn't mean that everyone playing violent/sexist games will commit violence or be a sexist
So? Now you want to disregard valid criticism because it threatens your (and mine) favourite hobby? Cry me a river.Quote:
Hi, gamer here.
Our community has been constantly threatened by a moarlistic society who has been trying to censor my media, something I care about, for decades.
A lot of resentment in those words. I think we are approaching the crux of the issue. How old were you when your parents tried to limit your gaming time? How did it make you feel.Quote:
We were and still are judged for liking something other people dont, the right used to call us murderers in waiting and now the left call us mysogynists.
The only thing keeping censorship away has been an earnest effort by the majority of our community to dispell the fearmongering that has seeped into the mass media and only recently are we being accepted by the mainstream as something other than a tickng timebomb, we still have to work on the mysigynistic pigs thing but we'll get there all the same.
And Jack Thompson is...?Quote:
The guy who has been supporting you with thanks and snide comments has just gone full Jack Thompson.
I cant believe my bait actually worked, holly crap.
http://www.wikihow.com/Get-over-an-ObsessionQuote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
cute.
A prominent game Critic from the 90's and early 00's who called for a ban on violent games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Ironically enough he is now a major supporter of the Gamergate moment... I kid you not...
I read a wikipedia article just now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
So, Greyblades, anyone who disagrees with you is Jack Thompson? :laugh4: You're cute, indeed.
So you mean he finally played some computer games and the DID break him?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
nope he still calls for a ban on violent games - he just hates Feminists more than Gamers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I'm not sure if I am surprised by that.
No, you're just repeating his arguments while also supporting sarkeesian's arguments for the same reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
My impression is that Moody and Ironside seem to be operating upon the idea that what they advocate is different to what he did because it's the left saying sexism and not the right saying violence, I beleive they are allowing political affiliation to override any objections they have against censorship and they need a wakeup call. So I gambled and attempted to provoke a reaction that I could use prove my point.
And here you are coming out of the sidelines; advocating both side's censorship with no political idealism to hide a belief that full grown adults cannot be trusted to view fiction without being negatively affected by it.
When I saw it happen I was giddy that it worked out better than I had ever imagined.
Now I am depressed that a single gamble did more to prove my point than hours of thought and effort.
Who exactly is calling for censorship?Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Anita isn't, Ironside isn't, I am not and I haven't seen Sarmatian calling for it either (unless I am misreading him).
Sarmatian is arguing there is a link between Violence and Violent games but he hasn't suggested banning them...
I am on the fence on the issue - I don't believe Violent games create violent people but I do believe it desensitises people to violence (and I think that is true of all media not just games) - we aren't as shocked at graphic violence as we used to be (I can remember watching the opening of Saving Private Ryan and being openly horrified - now I don't bat an eyelid).
I think the same is true of sexism in games (and other media) - while it wont make gamers sexist it does reinforce sexist ideas within our culture which makes people less likely to question them.
I must congratulate sarkeesian for not taking the suicidal route and going to the courts, using shame to coerce the consumers to stop buying games they like is a big step up in effective agenda pushing. A different method does not change the same lack of credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
It might sound right to you, but being desensitized to fictional violence does not translate to being desensitized to real life violence, when Jack Thompson attempted to prove otherwise to the american courts it was dismissed as baseless. He tried again and failed again, doing it so many times so many times that he was disbarred.Quote:
Sarmatian is arguing there is a link between Violence and Violent games but he hasn't suggested banning them...
I am on the fence on the issue - I don't believe Violent games create violent people but I do believe it desensitises people to violence (and I think that is true of all media not just games) - we aren't as shocked at graphic violence as we used to be (I can remember watching the opening of Saving Private Ryan and being openly horrified - now I don't bat an eyelid).
I think the same is true of sexism in games (and other media) - while it wont make gamers sexist it does reinforce sexist ideas within our culture which makes people less likely to question them.
The sexism argument works on the same logic, as samaritan exhibits, so why would it be any more legitimate?
I'd like to correct this part:I think I got a bit carried away there.Quote:
I must congratulate sarkeesian for not taking the suicidal route and going to the courts, using shame to coerce the consumers to stop buying games they like is a big step up in effective agenda pushing. A different method does not change the same lack of credibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
She isnt and you arent, these guys are:Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Sarkeesian's ideas are unsubstantial and rather counterproductive as I explained but they are being used by these guys to shame and coerce the consumers to stop buying games this group doesnt like.
Sarkeesian is like ayn rand, her ideas are unsubstantiated and imo wrong, but they're just an opinion. However like rand she gains ire she doesnt deserve (including mine, sadly) due to others using thier ideas to justify deplorable behavior, like Ayn Rand is used to justify tax dodging these are used to shame men for likeing juvinile materiel they are painting as sexist.
Now, as to why the gaming news websites exhibited are being so blatant about their agenda, that comes down to gamergate and another discussion altogether.
none of those articles are calling for a ban on games - they are (in a very hamfisted way) saying is that the gaming identity (i.e. the community) has a problem - that problem being harassment.
These articles date back to the beginning of Gamersgate (these articles actually gave it its name) - basically the whole Quinnsipricary nonsense led to attacks on the Gaming press (under the now proven wrong accusation she slept with reporters to get good reviews) - in a typical response the gaming press circled the wagons and responded with the articles above - basically a knee jerk attack at those they saw turning on them - this of course blew up in their faces and turned into what we know as Gamersgate today.
Not one article talked about censoring games - a lot bemoaned the "death" of the gamer identity (basically they were nostalgically longing for the 90's when the gaming community was FAR more niche and not as openly hostile to each other) but that isn't a call for censorship
As Moody explained, I didn't call for a ban on games. I pointed out to examples where games influenced behavior and findings of some respectable associations of experts claiming there is a causal link. You rejected it out of hand, without any logical explanation. "It was an attack on games and I like games" is not valid argument if you're older than three. It's not valid even then, but you can be forgiven.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If you read the first post I wrote in the thread, my point is that sticking your head in the sand just because you are a gamer is wrong. Gaming community tends to act like you, refusing to even allow a discussion to be had.
You're not even reading what was written. Instead, you are equating any criticism of status quo with an extreme criticism. What is next? If I say I like some communist ideals, you're gonna equate me with Pol Pot? And be happy how smart you are because you proved I'm a violent, murdering dictator?
If you are interested in a serious discussion instead of juvenile exercise in self-aggrandizement, get back to me. Until then, so long.
Been busy and the thread has moved a lot since then.
Age 8, 14, 16. On games with age restriction 15. And you could see the reason for the age restrictions. It's a few steps below Jack Thompson.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
I got the feeling we should move on to that sexism in video games (and other forms of media) can have an influence on adult people? It seems to have moved in that direction and since you reject that notion and a lot of the debate is based on that it does have an influence...
Does media exposure have any influence at all? Of course not, that's why all commercials are only informative and quite rare and not a major business. Are still busy, so digging through the research papers are going to take a while.
For a starter: Huge quote incoming from "Keeping Abreast of Hypersexuality: A Video Game Character Content Analysis", since it's behind a paywall unless you have access.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Bolded part is how sexism differs from violence. When was the last time you got punished for say male gazing? And while most of the article talks about youth, notice the children and adults part.
Frederickson and Roberts 1997 "Objectification theory: toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks" is apparently the starting article talking about objectification of women. It's free but also 36 pages so.
On a side note, Clarkson is actually working on a car show, but AFAIK no details yet.
Hurrah
I must say you are better informed that I thought, however:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir Moody
1. Technically Alan Baldwin coined the term the day before.
2. The quinspiracy was internet drama, Gamergate was started from the fallout of it. During the drama Nathan grayson revealed was in a relationship with zoe quinn before or during the writing of this article among others and hadnt revealed it.
This was in breach of journalistic ethics (as this guy explains) this wasn't an egreigeously biased article but the lack of response from his employers, be it discipline or even acknowledgement, gained attention and with digging several other breaches were found like:
Questions were asked and in response the gaming press indeed "circled the wagons and responded with the articles above" which touched off a consumer revolt long in the making, the highlight being these articles, linking a large swath of gaming journalists together in one mailing list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
3. The articles expressed a false implication; that the harrassment were inherent to the gamers themselves. Harrassment is an internet wide problem, one that plagues everywhere from MLP fandoms to Stormfront. Without consequences the GIFT reigns and to imply it as a problem with gamer culture specifically is highly disingenuous and, as you probably already noticed, a dodge to avoid a real issue.
Why do I believe that this is censorship?
Well, you dont need government action to censor if you control the media.
During the quinnspiracy it was shown through that mailing list that miss quinn had enough influence that journalists were being kept from reporting on it negatively, I believe that is censorship in itself.
In the sarkeesian issue, all those articles pointed to the harassers while none even acknowledged the existance of legitimate critics of sarkeesian. I feel it is enough to convince me that these two people, two women who cry about the toxicity of masculinity, have (or had) influence over gaming journalism and I do believe they were using it to push an effort to keep thier critics out of the limelight.
Then we have all these journalists trying to redefine the term gamer as another variant of undesirable; telling the creators they dont need to be the audience, insisting they are being left behind, declaring gamers are over.
Combined it's enough to make me think there was and still is an attempt to push the idea that liking juvinile materiel makes you sexist and the media was being used to silence anyone who dissented.
But that's my opinion and as ms sarkeesian has shown, an opinion does not have to be based in reality.
Sorry, Ironside, but I'm trying to limit myself to one long post a day and this seemed more urgent. I'll answer you on saturday.