Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 17:38:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 17:35:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 15:16:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 14:54:
And let's say there is a cult that REALLY loves their broken bridges and who had to defend their broken bridges against an corrupt lawyer with tooth nails and any weapon they could field, and you publish that article with comments disabled, on youtube, mis-portray bridges that are not even really broken, selectively show tropes that only prove your side while leaving the ones that would kinda defeat your point out... and to top it all of, you insult one of the most loved broken bridge in the world. Suddenly you are surprised that cult really hates your guts, and so much that even years after that article, they still hate your guts?

Here's the problem, though: you said "her side."

Her side is just that video games are often very lazy in their portrayals of women and repeatedly use very common tropes.

That's it.

You can't say she ignores things that prove her wrong because you can't prove that wrong. You can't accuse her of being selective because all she's doing is showing how common the tropes are.

Eh, of course I can say she is being selective. She only shows scenes staged in such a way to show these tropes. I could show you any trope you want in Fallout 3, by recording and playing selectively just to prove that point, and through editing make it so as if that game were completely focused on those tropes. I could make it a pacifist simulator, a racist game, a sexist game and a game that reinforces slavery. It would never even get close to what Fallout 3 actually is because I play to reinforce a point, not how a normal person plays these games.

To me, her videos were always nothing but jokes. The underwear scene out of Kingdoms of Amalur for example, reinforces NOTHING except that the player threw away the STARTING CLOTHS. Now is the game sexist.. or is the player? ...

And yes, her side. I like my broken bridges and anyone who wants a world without them is an enemy of mine. Long live the cult of broken bridges! Recruiting under any broken bridge near you Sign up now, and you get address and phone number of Zoe Quinn!

I don't think she ever claims a game is totally focused on that trope, she's just showing how common that trope is. If it's in a game, it's in a game, whether it's there once or a hundred times.

The point isn't saying "these games are nothing but tropes," but "these tropes are in a lot of games."

Yeah, except, as I said, that she shows tropes in Kingdoms of Amalur and Saints Row that are not actually there. And that's a pretty big issue when you claim to take a "scientific look on tropes about females in video games"

Ps.: IN the end, the only thing I do fault her for, is for making the internet more toxic because she put herself in the spotlight, and not just the video. She babbles on about change and stuff, but that is all crap. Nothing will change, because she has made it a "red vs blue" thing. The sides will now always exist, no one on either side will budge, and that is how you make the internet more toxic. Because both sides draw in more and more supporters over time, that's how it goes on the web.


The threats she receives are unacceptable, and there is no "but" coming

This comment was edited on Jan 29, 2015, 18:20.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 17:35:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 15:16:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 14:54:
And let's say there is a cult that REALLY loves their broken bridges and who had to defend their broken bridges against an corrupt lawyer with tooth nails and any weapon they could field, and you publish that article with comments disabled, on youtube, mis-portray bridges that are not even really broken, selectively show tropes that only prove your side while leaving the ones that would kinda defeat your point out... and to top it all of, you insult one of the most loved broken bridge in the world. Suddenly you are surprised that cult really hates your guts, and so much that even years after that article, they still hate your guts?

Here's the problem, though: you said "her side."

Her side is just that video games are often very lazy in their portrayals of women and repeatedly use very common tropes.

That's it.

You can't say she ignores things that prove her wrong because you can't prove that wrong. You can't accuse her of being selective because all she's doing is showing how common the tropes are.

Eh, of course I can say she is being selective. She only shows scenes staged in such a way to show these tropes. I could show you any trope you want in Fallout 3, by recording and playing selectively just to prove that point, and through editing make it so as if that game were completely focused on those tropes. I could make it a pacifist simulator, a racist game, a sexist game and a game that reinforces slavery. It would never even get close to what Fallout 3 actually is because I play to reinforce a point, not how a normal person plays these games.

To me, her videos were always nothing but jokes. The underwear scene out of Kingdoms of Amalur for example, reinforces NOTHING except that the player threw away the STARTING CLOTHS. Now is the game sexist.. or is the player? ...

And yes, her side. I like my broken bridges and anyone who wants a world without them is an enemy of mine. Long live the cult of broken bridges! Recruiting under any broken bridge near you Sign up now, and you get address and phone number of Zoe Quinn!

I don't think she ever claims a game is totally focused on that trope, she's just showing how common that trope is. If it's in a game, it's in a game, whether it's there once or a hundred times.

The point isn't saying "these games are nothing but tropes," but "these tropes are in a lot of games."

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 15:16:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 14:54:
And let's say there is a cult that REALLY loves their broken bridges and who had to defend their broken bridges against an corrupt lawyer with tooth nails and any weapon they could field, and you publish that article with comments disabled, on youtube, mis-portray bridges that are not even really broken, selectively show tropes that only prove your side while leaving the ones that would kinda defeat your point out... and to top it all of, you insult one of the most loved broken bridge in the world. Suddenly you are surprised that cult really hates your guts, and so much that even years after that article, they still hate your guts?

Here's the problem, though: you said "her side."

Her side is just that video games are often very lazy in their portrayals of women and repeatedly use very common tropes.

That's it.

You can't say she ignores things that prove her wrong because you can't prove that wrong. You can't accuse her of being selective because all she's doing is showing how common the tropes are.

Eh, of course I can say she is being selective. She only shows scenes staged in such a way to show these tropes. I could show you any trope you want in Fallout 3, by recording and playing selectively just to prove that point, and through editing make it so as if that game were completely focused on those tropes. I could make it a pacifist simulator, a racist game, a sexist game and a game that reinforces slavery. It would never even get close to what Fallout 3 actually is because I play to reinforce a point, not how a normal person plays these games.

To me, her videos were always nothing but jokes. The underwear scene out of Kingdoms of Amalur for example, reinforces NOTHING except that the player threw away the STARTING CLOTHS. Now is the game sexist.. or is the player? ...

And yes, her side. I like my broken bridges and anyone who wants a world without them is an enemy of mine. Long live the cult of broken bridges! Recruiting under any broken bridge near you Sign up now, and you get address and phone number of Zoe Quinn, the usurper of broken bridges!

Ps. I am not serious with the bridges I know fully well she does not agitate against gamers, but her posse does (not just against gamers, also against developers and artists). And as I said, you can't throw a molotov in a horde of zombies and believe you can somehow get away from it unscathed. She triggered the shit-storm, and her posse fuels it. To me that can never result in a change or even lead to the convincing of anyone. If you bash the things people love, those people will not listen to your argument. And her videos may not have been that, but Zoe Quinn and that whole shitfest that ran along it also happened. And since then this topic is toxic.

This comment was edited on Jan 29, 2015, 17:48.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 14:54:
And let's say there is a cult that REALLY loves their broken bridges and who had to defend their broken bridges against an corrupt lawyer with tooth nails and any weapon they could field, and you publish that article with comments disabled, on youtube, mis-portray bridges that are not even really broken, selectively show tropes that only prove your side while leaving the ones that would kinda defeat your point out... and to top it all of, you insult one of the most loved broken bridge in the world. Suddenly you are surprised that cult really hates your guts, and so much that even years after that article, they still hate your guts?

Here's the problem, though: you said "her side."

Her side is just that video games are often very lazy in their portrayals of women and repeatedly use very common tropes.

That's it.

You can't say she ignores things that prove her wrong because you can't prove that wrong. You can't accuse her of being selective because all she's doing is showing how common the tropes are.

I find many, many video gamers totally misunderstand what she's doing. She isn't saying games are bad. She isn't saying individual games are bad. In fact, she repeatedly says it's ok to love and enjoy the games she mentions.

She's just showing that there's a great deal of improvement available in how games write their female characters. Nothing more. And I wonder if people accusing her of "hissy fits" have ever watched, because she does this all calmly and level-headedly, because she's discussing things she enjoys and wishes was better, not things she hates and wants to demonize.

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 14:33:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 14:07:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 11:07:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 19:40:

Asmo wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 19:15:
Oh yeah, and fucking Sarkeesian is going to have a fucking field day with this... /eyeroll

Considering that she throws a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with her opinions, it doesn't take much for that to happen.

Can you show me an instance of her having a hissy fit, or even talking to someone disagreeing with her?

She's always civil, or even smiling, and her interactions tend to be solely through her videos, as she is there to start dialogue, not be a part of it.

Starting a dialog and not wanting to be part of it is like throwing a molotov cocktail into a crowd of zombies and THEN complaining the zombies bite your ass off. In case of Sarkeesian, if it were the zombie apocalypse and she'd ask me for help, I'd ignore her, because according to her, women can help themselves and men helping a "damsel in distress" are misogynistic. I think that's super awesome, from now on I will only ever help men when I see one that needs my help, and never a women. That's the world these people want, no?

Disagreed.

Think of it this way: I read an article on the worst bridges in America the other day. If Anita Sarkeesian had written this article, people would:
- Argue that she cherry picked the bridges and that some bridges are great
- Argue that, yeah, the US may have some problems with bridges but other countries have worse bridges
- Argue that who cares about bridges when we also have problems with roads, and why fix one without fixing the other?
- Ask how come the article didn't propose solutions
- Get angry that she dare criticize bridges, how many had she even been on?
- Say that if she loves bridges in good condition so much why doesn't she just build one herself?
- Ask where the comments section is so they could debate with her whether these bridges are good or not


That isn't the purpose. The article just wanted to raise awareness that the US infrastructure was underfunded and some bridges were in bad condition. And the author didn't want to lead a discussion. It didn't want to be involved in the discussion. It wanted the discussion to not happen via tens of thousands of people on the internet at the same time, which goes nowhere and can't be followed (and unfairly makes the author the sole authority figure), but would rather people read it, think about it themselves, then maybe talk to some friends about what they'd seen and what they thought about it.

Can Anita really have a discussion with every single video game player? Or is it better if some of them watch the videos and then talk to their friends as they try to figure out if they agree or not?

The difference is bridges are built for everyone by the gov, games are built by private corporations for a target market, a market that might very well be 90% male and so cares fuck all about women in gaming. So that is actually an really iffy comparison.

And let's say there is a cult that REALLY loves their broken bridges and who had to defend their broken bridges against an corrupt lawyer with tooth nails and any weapon they could field, and you publish that article with comments disabled, on youtube, mis-portray bridges that are not even really broken, selectively show tropes that only prove your side while leaving the ones that would kinda defeat your point out... and to top it all of, you insult one of the most loved broken bridge in the world. Suddenly you are surprised that cult really hates your guts, and so much that even years after that article, they still hate your guts?

Don't mess with dudes loving broken bridges.

To me, she threw a molotov cocktail and then is surprised there's a fire. I mean do you honestly believe she did not realize this would be a massive shitfest of hatred directed at her? Why not post these videos and articles anonymously at the very least?

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 14:07:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 11:07:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 19:40:

Asmo wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 19:15:
Oh yeah, and fucking Sarkeesian is going to have a fucking field day with this... /eyeroll

Considering that she throws a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with her opinions, it doesn't take much for that to happen.

Can you show me an instance of her having a hissy fit, or even talking to someone disagreeing with her?

She's always civil, or even smiling, and her interactions tend to be solely through her videos, as she is there to start dialogue, not be a part of it.

Starting a dialog and not wanting to be part of it is like throwing a molotov cocktail into a crowd of zombies and THEN complaining the zombies bite your ass off. In case of Sarkeesian, if it were the zombie apocalypse and she'd ask me for help, I'd ignore her, because according to her, women can help themselves and men helping a "damsel in distress" are misogynistic. I think that's super awesome, from now on I will only ever help men when I see one that needs my help, and never a women. That's the world these people want, no?

Disagreed.

Think of it this way: I read an article on the worst bridges in America the other day. If Anita Sarkeesian had written this article, people would:
- Argue that she cherry picked the bridges and that some bridges are great
- Argue that, yeah, the US may have some problems with bridges but other countries have worse bridges
- Argue that who cares about bridges when we also have problems with roads, and why fix one without fixing the other?
- Ask how come the article didn't propose solutions
- Get angry that she dare criticize bridges, how many had she even been on?
- Say that if she loves bridges in good condition so much why doesn't she just build one herself?
- Ask where the comments section is so they could debate with her whether these bridges are good or not


That isn't the purpose. The article just wanted to raise awareness that the US infrastructure was underfunded and some bridges were in bad condition. And the author didn't want to lead a discussion. It didn't want to be involved in the discussion. It wanted the discussion to not happen via tens of thousands of people on the internet at the same time, which goes nowhere and can't be followed (and unfairly makes the author the sole authority figure), but would rather people read it, think about it themselves, then maybe talk to some friends about what they'd seen and what they thought about it.

Can Anita really have a discussion with every single video game player? Or is it better if some of them watch the videos and then talk to their friends as they try to figure out if they agree or not?

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 11:07:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 19:40:

Asmo wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 19:15:
Oh yeah, and fucking Sarkeesian is going to have a fucking field day with this... /eyeroll

Considering that she throws a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with her opinions, it doesn't take much for that to happen.

Can you show me an instance of her having a hissy fit, or even talking to someone disagreeing with her?

She's always civil, or even smiling, and her interactions tend to be solely through her videos, as she is there to start dialogue, not be a part of it.

Starting a dialog and not wanting to be part of it is like throwing a molotov cocktail into a crowd of zombies and THEN complaining the zombies bite your ass off. In case of Sarkeesian, if it were the zombie apocalypse and she'd ask me for help, I'd ignore her, because according to her, women can help themselves and men helping a "damsel in distress" are misogynistic. I think that's super awesome, from now on I will only ever help men when I see one that needs my help, and never a women. That's the world these people want, no?

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 19:40:

Asmo wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 19:15:
Oh yeah, and fucking Sarkeesian is going to have a fucking field day with this... /eyeroll

Considering that she throws a hissy fit whenever someone disagrees with her opinions, it doesn't take much for that to happen.

Can you show me an instance of her having a hissy fit, or even talking to someone disagreeing with her?

She's always civil, or even smiling, and her interactions tend to be solely through her videos, as she is there to start dialogue, not be a part of it.

InBlack wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 09:38:
I am in the same camp Eraser. I usually hate RPGs which wont let me develop my own character. But the third Witcher simply looks too good to pass up, even if in my mind it will probably be more of an open world action adventure, instead of a proper cRPG. Still we were talking about 'why sex matters' and in the case of an adult game with a strong and well developed protagonist, as well as an ambiguous and slightly off-kilter world where nothing is as it seems there is no reason why it shouldnt.

Yeah and for that reason I will consider getting it anyway. Once it's on sale or something. The sex in Witcher is however not why I get these games... For me it's only the atmosphere and lore. (Which is why to me, these pre-defined characters are not adding much at all).

It is however nice we get to see these games still being made.. even if they are tainted by consoles

I am in the same camp Eraser. I usually hate RPGs which wont let me develop my own character. But the third Witcher simply looks too good to pass up, even if in my mind it will probably be more of an open world action adventure, instead of a proper cRPG. Still we were talking about 'why sex matters' and in the case of an adult game with a strong and well developed protagonist, as well as an ambiguous and slightly off-kilter world where nothing is as it seems there is no reason why it shouldnt.

InBlack wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 09:11:

WaltC wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 08:58:
This is the one area I disagree with CDProject Red about...the reality is that anyone sufficiently determined will at some point in his life have all the sex he wants--that's actually a regular part of life for most adults. But in fantasy games what won't happen in real life is monster slaying, living in fantasy realms, and the rest of it. That's the appeal. Yeah, sex is indeed natural--in adult life. Inside fantasy entertainment though it often comes off as designed specifically to titillate pubescent teens...;)

The books written about Geralt are all adult themed, they are layered and smart 'despite' being fantasy. Not everything is at it appears to be could easily be said to be the main theme of the stories. This is not a CDProject decision, to insert gratituous sex scenes where they have no business being. Geralt's interaction with the fairer sex is a big part of Geralt's story, this is not R.A. Salvatore we are talking about here, but please dont let artistic vision and plot devices dissaude you from your prudish views.

The problem is books are books, and books make for terrible video game stories. What is layers and smart in the books, comes about as a mini-game in Witcher games ,) And I'd prefer Witcher (the game) wasn't about book characters at all, because an already defined character has zero character development. Not to mention we barely have any choices in how to develop his character. Maybe W3 will fix that by having us play Siri for a while, but I doubt it. In the end if you read the books, SIRI is a defined character, and W3 will not define her differently.

This is primarily why I consider Witcher games not good RPG's

Xoxotl wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 05:50:

Ludomancer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 00:05:
I'm married, AND I fuck other women with the approval of my partner. I live a domestic life others can't even fantasize about, yet I still have the respect and understanding of the sexes that seems to boggle the minds of my peers.

Please don't presume that you speak for all of us in the Lifestyle, 'kay?

I'm still scratching my head why he had to announce that to everyone. Just bizarre...

At least it made me laugh.

WaltC wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 08:58:
This is the one area I disagree with CDProject Red about...the reality is that anyone sufficiently determined will at some point in his life have all the sex he wants--that's actually a regular part of life for most adults. But in fantasy games what won't happen in real life is monster slaying, living in fantasy realms, and the rest of it. That's the appeal. Yeah, sex is indeed natural--in adult life. Inside fantasy entertainment though it often comes off as designed specifically to titillate pubescent teens...;)

The books written about Geralt are all adult themed, they are layered and smart 'despite' being fantasy. Not everything is as it appears to be could easily be said to be the main theme of the stories and games. This is not a CDProject decision, to insert gratituous sex scenes where they have no business being. Geralt's interaction with the fairer sex is a big part of Geralt's story, this is not R.A. Salvatore we are talking about here, but please dont let artistic vision and plot devices dissaude you from your prudish views.

Which brings to mind the phrase "gratuitous sex." In real life it is difficult to have "gratuitous sex." But in games, books, and movies, gratuitous sex is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb. Yes, sex is "natural" and so forth in real life, but games, books, and movies are contrived forms of entertainment--not real life. Personally, I've never had a sex shortage in real life and so when watching movies, reading books, or playing computer games, I never say to myself, "Gee, where's the sex part?"

Now, maybe if I was ~15 or so, and not yet accustomed to having sex as a daily part of my life, I might actually say something like that...;) It's been a long, long time since I was 15, though, and frankly this kind of thing looks kind of silly in computer games--"cartoon sex" (like Popeye & Oliveoil) comes to mind. I'm not offended by it, I just think it looks silly, frankly. In books, movies and games, routinely, there are plenty of dramatic devices that demonstrate a close relationship, including sex, that don't require a graphic demonstration of sex--how much graphic sex is in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, or the movie trilogy, for instance?

This is the one area I disagree with CDProject Red about...the reality is that anyone sufficiently determined will at some point in his life have all the sex he wants--that's actually a regular part of life for most adults. But in fantasy games what won't happen in real life is monster slaying, living in fantasy realms, and the rest of it. That's the appeal. Yeah, sex is indeed natural--in adult life. Inside fantasy entertainment though it often comes off as designed specifically to titillate pubescent teens...;)

Ludomancer wrote on Jan 28, 2015, 20:18:
Heh. You realize if it's actually portrayed in a mature manner, people like Sarkesian would have no problem with it, right?

It's not the content, it's the tone and portrayal, and idiots (like yourself), that are too mentally handicapped to understand the difference.

That seems pretty naive to me. Her income literally depends on her having a problem with things.

There are few realistic portrayals of sex in the media anyway. That goes for movies and television doubly. People don't want realistic, they get that already. They want the fantasy.

Sarkeesian has become the new Derek Smart of thread destruction. Say the name, and the original topic disappears in the rear view.

Ludomancer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 00:05:
I'm married, AND I fuck other women with the approval of my partner. I live a domestic life others can't even fantasize about, yet I still have the respect and understanding of the sexes that seems to boggle the minds of my peers.

Please don't presume that you speak for all of us in the Lifestyle, 'kay?

InBlack wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 03:08:
Since you are so full of understanding, can I have your wife's phone number? I assume your arrangement works the other way too right?

Sounds like it does, go for it InBlack! You might have to bring the airpump to inflate her first

Cutter wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 02:03:

Ludomancer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 00:05:
I know words are hard and all, but trie teh typing bettar.

Kills me that any defense of one annoying woman's irritation with a male-dominated society is seen as "kissing ass".

I'm married, AND I fuck other women with the approval of my partner. I live a domestic life others can't even fantasize about, yet I still have the respect and understanding of the sexes that seems to boggle the minds of my peers.

Maybe my mistake is that I respect you all enough to call you peers? I could just treat you as idiots, but then you wouldn't learn anything.

Right. Bragging on the internet eh? Uh huh, and I suppose you have an enormous johnson, are a multi-millionaire, have a couple of PhDs, are a porn star and champion MMA fighter as well, right? Hey me too! What a small world!

Im usually one of the people who call out Cutter's bullshit, but this time he is right. You come accross as a pretentious prick who art better than us poor peasants. Since you are so full of understanding, can I have your wife's phone number? I assume your arrangement works the other way too right?

Ludomancer wrote on Jan 29, 2015, 00:05:
I know words are hard and all, but trie teh typing bettar.

Kills me that any defense of one annoying woman's irritation with a male-dominated society is seen as "kissing ass".

I'm married, AND I fuck other women with the approval of my partner. I live a domestic life others can't even fantasize about, yet I still have the respect and understanding of the sexes that seems to boggle the minds of my peers.

Maybe my mistake is that I respect you all enough to call you peers? I could just treat you as idiots, but then you wouldn't learn anything.

Right. Bragging on the internet eh? Uh huh, and I suppose you have an enormous johnson, are a multi-millionaire, have a couple of PhDs, are a porn star and champion MMA fighter as well, right? Hey me too! What a small world!