Clarkson gone!

[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).