Clarkson gone!

[Ironside]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yup have you read this? Or this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greyblades]

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

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

[Ironside]

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

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

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

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

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


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

So:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sarmatian]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greyblades]

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

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

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

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


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

[Greyblades]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Moody]

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

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

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

Inclusion of ability is not inherently encouragement.

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

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

[Greyblades]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Moody]

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

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

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

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

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

[Ironside]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Greyblades]

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

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

[Sir Moody]

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...

[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:

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.

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.

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.

[Sarmatian]

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.

[Greyblades]

Well I said I'd respond to the rest today, and so I will:

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.

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"

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.

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.

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").

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, why is this theory being so clung to?

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.

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.

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.

[Ironside]

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"

Certainly. But that group exists, is very noisy and is one part of the atmosphere when talking about these issues.

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.

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.

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.

It's in a computer game. Unless you have some super-special equipment on your gaming rig, it's only "look dont touch" there.

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.

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.

A major issue is that people want to have things that they like to be non-problematic even when they are problematic.
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.

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.

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.

So, why is this theory being so clung to?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

[CrossLOPER]

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

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

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

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

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

I think my original post got swallowed or something.

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

[Kralizec]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Moody]

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

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

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

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

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

[Greyblades]

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

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

[Kralizec]

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

That sounds awful.

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