sdgundamx wrote on Apr 1, 2015, 03:40:InBlack wrote on Apr 1, 2015, 03:02:
Beamer, I realize that Cutter posted a disparaging and probably offensive comment directed at Sarkeesian. There is very little (if any) sexual context attached to the comment as I see it, so how is it sexist? He is basically telling someone off. Someone who is female, which is why he used a female pronoun. Is it because he called her honey? I honestly want to know, Im not trying to bait you or anything.
Where did he riff on her sexuality?
The fact that this even needs explaining shows how far a lot gamers (particularly certain frequent posters on Blues) need to go in getting in touch with the real world.
When a male refers to an adult female who he doesn't know and has no personal relationship with as "honey," "sweetie," "sugar," "cupcake," or any other term that implies females aren't human but instead a tasty treat awaiting consumption, it is called "casual sexism." They are throwaway labels designed to reinforce the dominant power relationship of men over women by implying that women should be "nice girls" while guys have the prerogative to be asshats.
In the real world, if I were to refer to a female co-worker by any of those terms, the least I could expect would be an icy stare. Worst case scenario, I'd be called up to the boss for a talking-to and likely be required to take one of those god-awful online sexual harassment seminars.
In short, calling a female you've never met "honey" is sexist and offensive. I have no doubt Cutter intended his comment that way.
Did that clarify things for you?
Eirikrautha wrote on Feb 28, 2015, 10:52:
You know, it's pretty simple. Sarkeesian is directing her argument to the wrong entity. She's attacking video game producers when her real complaint is with nature and reality.
See, Sarkessian is on record as saying that all differences between men and women are the product of societal conditioning. Not "some." Not "most." All. This is the kind of delusion that engenders the vociferous and angry invective that she and her supporters are known for. It's why you have bogus terms like "the patriarchy" and "misogynists" as a staple of her argument. Because, in the end, she's fighting reality... and it angers her.
Let me be perfectly clear in what I mean. Men and women are not the same. There are over 528 biological differences between them, differences that evolved over millennia, to better suit men and women for the primitive roles they played before civilization. Go back 5000 years and look at gender roles. You will find that they weren't "invented" to keep women down; they were based on the very real living conditions of the time. With a life-expectancy of 30 years and a 50% child-mortality rate, human life was tough. There were no social safety nets for the elderly, meaning that those people lucky enough to make it to old age would be dependent on their children for their support. That means most women would have had to stay pregnant constantly, simply to produce enough children that the half that survived could support them. Men evolved better spacial awareness and more muscular frames to assist in their roles as hunters. These are all well established biological facts.
Now, as societies have become more productive, as standards of living have risen, men and women no longer need to obey their biological roles in order to survive. This is a good thing. In fact, our societies in the West have advanced technologically to the point where we can easily say that men and women should have the same societal responsibilities and privileges (voting, legal standing, pay, etc.). But evolution does not work as fast as society changes. And men and women still carry the biological differences of their primitive ancestors.
These have real world consequences. Look at Sarkeesian's complaint about the animation for walking. Women's hips are constructed differently than men's (on average). Were you to motion capture an average woman walking and a man walking, you would instantly be able to spot the stick-figure that was female, just from her gait. So complaining about this in a video game (even when exaggerated) is ridiculous, especially when what qualifies as "exaggerated" is not an objective standard in the first place.
Likewise, when it comes to representations of female as, say, warriors, once again reality intervenes. Even modern militaries (whose inclusiveness has more to do with politics than capabilities) have a difficult time with female front-line troops (the ones that do use them tend to be the small nations facing existential threats, like Israel, or the nations that don't fight anyone, anyway... see Scandinavian militaries). The US Army has had to develop a training course to prepare women for the Ranger training, because they are so desperate to get a female through the course. Think about that! They have to train the women extensively just so they can have a chance to not wash out on the first day (which none have managed to avoid so far). This is totally a product of the biological differences between a peak-performing male and a peak-performing female. It's why we have an NBA and a WNBA.
Such biological differences aren't all in the males' favor, though. Most courts still give women preference in child custody cases, for real biological reasons. But to deny that women's bodies and minds are built differently (talk to any college or professional-level trainer about men's and women's knees, for example) is a direct contradiction of reality.
So what Sarkeesian wants is an unrealistic portrayal of men and women, based on her own personal biases. And she wants this enforced across video games, so that she doesn't have to see the reality of biology thrown in her face over and over again. That's why so many people have a visceral reaction against her. It'd be like having a person tell you that you had to agree the sky was green, or you'd lose your job (just as people have lost their jobs for "offending" the sensibilities of the SJWs). That's the level of stupid this woman represents.
Zanthar wrote on Feb 27, 2015, 00:26:Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Feb 26, 2015, 21:30:Zanthar wrote on Feb 26, 2015, 21:13:
No, I've just been around long enough to see what a festering shithole the USA is turning into.
But evidently not long enough to know much about monetary policy, macroeconomics, or global finance.
A question: to whom does the US Federal government, and by extension the American people, owe that $17 Trillion? Hint: if you're answer is "The Chinese", you're only accounting for $1.24 Trillion. Another hint, this time by analogy: if you borrowed 11 trillion dollars from your wife, is your household 11 trillion dollars poorer?
If you spend that 17 trillion that your don't have, yes you owe that money to someone.
Do you honestly think the government can just inject that much imaginary cash into the economy with no consequences? They are propping up wall street right now, just wait until it catches up with them.
jdreyer wrote on Feb 21, 2015, 17:06:
This is going to be yet another 100 comment SC thread, isn't it.
Slick wrote on Nov 7, 2014, 20:33:Quboid wrote on Nov 7, 2014, 10:00:
Develop for Xbox, pay Microsoft. Develop for Playstation, pay Sony. Develop for PC, pay Valve.
just kill yourself.
HorrorScope wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 19:17:Dagnamit wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 15:35:HorrorScope wrote on Oct 12, 2014, 15:10:
We need to gif the part where they show the crowd clapping.
Extremely busy HUD.
Dude playing with a controller on a pc only game.
controller sounds reasonable. If i had to choose one control method for a space sim/3rd person/fps combo, I would pick a controller too.
Right but I would choose two. He choose the best of no worlds.
Creston wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 15:23:And yes, you're right, it isn't journalism. But, frankly, where is the room for "journalism" in games? It's covering a consumer product!
Then stop fucking calling it that. Let all these fucking sites stop with their horseshit "we're here to deliver you honest and unbiased news" or whatever other waffling crap that Kotaku dipshit was spewing on a daily basis, and just admit that you're all JUST FREELANCER ADVERTISERS.
PHJF wrote on Aug 19, 2014, 22:19:
You seriously comparing seating people at a restaurant to medical care? It takes five, ten minutes to cook a steak. Want to tell me how long to detect and then tell somebody they have cancer?
Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 16:15:jdreyer wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 14:57:Cutter wrote on Aug 18, 2014, 13:47:
When you abandon your principles for money that's called selling out.
Except that Notch has more money than he can spend in seven lifetimes. OR won't substantially add to his sales, if at all. It will simply add more immersiveness to his 5 year old game. It sounds like he just changed his mind, and especially given that FB has been hands off with Oculus, that's not an illogical transformation of opinion.
He's a multi-millionaire, not billionaire so it's not that much. However, the fact that he is selling out when he doesn't need the money only makes it worse. Hell, I'd sell out for the right amount. Principles start to get pretty rubbery with the more money that's involved. I'd feel ashamed of course. But cruising around the Caribbean on my 50ft sailboat, drinking rum and banging hot island chicks has a way of assuaging that guilt PDQ.
PropheT wrote on Jul 17, 2014, 20:00:jdreyer wrote on Jul 17, 2014, 19:41:
With an MMO, you go in with your friends, and if it doesn't work out then you've all lost a lot of money and hundreds of hours.
I have a hard time calling any game I get hundreds of hours out of a bad deal. Hell, if I got hundreds of hours out of it that's already a better deal than 90% of the games I buy.
PropheT wrote on Jul 15, 2014, 18:02:yonder wrote on Jul 15, 2014, 17:40:
Here's my main rule on DLC. You should never feel OBLIGATED to buy it, and you should never feel as if you are screwed if you don't buy it.
EA's final nail in the BioWare coffin, Mass Effect 3, had a similar Day 1 DLC. Sure, it was "extra" in theory, but you felt screwed if you didn't buy it, because (spoilers) IT WAS A DAMNED PROTHEAN (/spoilers). It wasn't like the extra characters in ME2 where, honestly, if you didn't get them, you didn't really miss much. The ME2 character DLC, while awesome, was truly EXTRA.
The extra character was a deluxe edition option, not really DLC; it was only DLC for people who bought the regular edition that wanted to upgrade after the fact. I don't see it as much of a complaint that they included something with a deluxe edition that actually made it worth getting, when most of the time it's useless stuff. He still wasn't a necessary component of the game any more than the optional character in ME2 was, he was just a more interesting character.
I would think that providing something you can purchase separately for the game that's compelling enough to make you feel like you need to have it would be a good thing, rather than 41 DLC packs that you can take or leave but might as well throw some money at.
Did someone say the Guild Wars games are 'too easy'? I'd be the first to admit that a lot of the content is very casual-oriented. But there are some very difficult and challenging things in the game. Especially in newer content releases.
On topic, I've no plan on subbing to another MMOG any time soon, Wildstar just isn't good enough to justify it IMHO.
nin wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 17:55:HugeJerk wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 17:43:
There isn't an option to play with bots instead of other players. Part of the problem people are having is waiting in match queues because there aren't enough players and there's no "fill open spots with bots" capability.yonder wrote on Jun 20, 2014, 17:31:
WHY do you think you need a SP campaign? You can play against bots, correct? Then who cares?
What that guy said. There are bots for some functions, but not all. You still end up needing to be online and find other (human) players.
jdreyer wrote on Jun 21, 2014, 03:46:
but they do offer a fully configurable single player offline mode with bots. Titanfall does not.