I consider Call of Duty to be a pretty casual game. I consider most of the mainstream market to be pretty casual (and I don't really have issue with this). Rather than remarking on the 'style' of game, it's more useful to comment on the market. App store games, flash games, etc identify a market (like AAA game). Discussions like this are indeed targeted at the AAA market, and typically exclude browser games or games that you play on your phone.
I find it generally means games that are pick-up-and-play, that require little effort, but often a lot of time. In reality, it is meaningless, it is just how the gamer views themselves. I'm a casualy-hardcore gamer (if that makes any sense), and don't really fit either "casual" or "hardcore" gamer completely.
Meanwhile, I'm sitting here playing both Civ:BE (which requires a tonof time and dedication) and Cook! Serve! DELICIOUS!, which is basically a very well done PC port of a phone game, as well as other games like payday, league of legends, etc.
No one is attacking anyone's gamer cred, could we not talk about this? Please?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I find it generally means games that are pick-up-and-play, that require little effort, but often a lot of time.
In reality, it is meaningless, it is just how the gamer views themselves. I'm a casualy-hardcore gamer (if that makes any sense), and don't really fit either "casual" or "hardcore" gamer completely.
Lotet wrote: No one is attacking anyone's gamer cred, could we not talk about this? Please?
Co'tor Shas wrote: I find it generally means games that are pick-up-and-play, that require little effort, but often a lot of time.
In reality, it is meaningless, it is just how the gamer views themselves. I'm a casualy-hardcore gamer (if that makes any sense), and don't really fit either "casual" or "hardcore" gamer completely.
I'm not sure, I've looked up the 2 definitions and I don't feel either is appropriate to describe what I'm being. Hmm, I suppose if I can't figure it out that would make it Obtuse then.
Melissia wrote: ... I didn't have any problems understanding what Co'tor Shas meant. What's confusing about it?
LordofHats wrote: I consider Call of Duty to be a pretty casual game. I consider most of the mainstream market to be pretty casual (and I don't really have issue with this). Rather than remarking on the 'style' of game, it's more useful to comment on the market. App store games, flash games, etc identify a market (like AAA game). Discussions like this are indeed targeted at the AAA market, and typically exclude browser games or games that you play on your phone.
There is no set meaning of what counts as a casual game. It just seems to be a label that people put on games they don't think fit in gaming. I basically comes from the idea that a gamer isn't simply a person who enjoys games, but they are some kind of sub group.
I'm not sure, I've looked up the 2 definitions and I don't feel either is appropriate to describe what I'm being. Hmm, I suppose if I can't figure it out that would make it Obtuse then.
As in, are you: a. making a joke about me saying what something means, and then saying that thing itself has no meaning. or b. not understanding a very simple matter.
Slarg232 wrote: And how many of those female gamers are playing Candy Crush?
Don't get me wrong, I know wimminz play other games and I am not saying "Girls only play Candy Crush", but it's also a statistically proven fact that more women (Typically in the higher age ranges) play the more "Casual" market.
And why is that bad or make them less of a "gamer"?
I don't understand this dislike for things which are deemed "casual". Sure they're not the most creative or inspired games, but they can serve as something which Call of Duty, Battlefield, WoW or any other AAA title can't. A gateway. Getting people playing games, be it in their browser or on their phone, is something that is good. It can start with words with friends and move onto Scribblenauts. Anything which makes gaming more accessible to people, even if it is in a very basic form, is good.
I mean is Tetris considered a casual game? All it is is dropping blocks into place and trying to get a high score. If it were to be made now I think it's very likely it would've been first released as a casual game on social media sites. Yet as it was released a long time ago it doesn't fall into that category, despite the actual gameplay being similar to that used in casual games.
I really don't understand how candy crush and other incredibly simple games on cellphones are considered a "gateway" game when you can just boot up Warframe, World of Tanks, Team Fortress 2, etc on your computer that can run on virtually anything, and are free. Is there any evidence at all to even suggest that casual gamers actually "move up", or do they just still play cellphone games? Because I highly doubt they'd make such a jump given how unrelated the two are.
Is it really all that surprising that women are more likely to buy tech items than men?
Well, that study was a survey asking people what they planned to buy, so I'd be more interested in seeing what was actually followed through on, and that second link is a tiny blurb titled "Women play more games than men" using that same flawed 47% number that is the very study that I had issues with.
I mean, hell - if you go and read that collection of infographics that were linked as a source, on of them tells you that "46% of gamers purchased or plan on purchasing a game in 2012"... so less than half of the people who they count as gamers in the study actually buy games? I'm sure some of that is people being strictly into f2p games... buy come on. I'm not a snob about gaming but I think that not buying a single game in a year is a pretty solid cutoff for calling someone not a gamer.
(I think I might just yield to the idea that threads get off topic by nature and that opening up a new thread every time the topic turns would get spamy. So lets talk about who is a gamer.)
I thought about this idea of what makes a gamer and I came up with an odd conclusion. I don't think I'm a gamer. I mean I play games like a lot. I am into games, I think about games what games are and what they can be, should be shouldn't be. I maybe think about games much too much. (I am prone to over thinking things. ) I just don't identify with the word gamer.
I'm going to blame GG for this realization. I wasn't offended by the gamers are dead stories. I didn't get upset in part because it didn't feel like they were talking about me. They were talking about a group I'm not apart of , or at the least I don't want to be part of the group. So I just kind of said I'm not a gamer I guess I surrender the word gamer because it's come to mean something I don't want to be.
Melissia wrote: So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?
Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.
Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.
I will go ahead and expand my point. Someone who does not buy games is functionally irrelevant for the discussion of determining the future of video gaming. No matter their gender. They can have an opinion, but they are functionally irrelevant.
It really doesn't matter who is or is not a 'gamer' by whatever metric you use. I personally find the idea silly that folks bandy about this "47% of gamers are women" statistic to try and prove something, when apparently according to the study they are citing roughly half of the people they define as gamers don't actually buy games.
Melissia wrote: So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?
Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.
Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.
Here is the thing. The goal posts for qualifying as a "Gamer" are going to be moved the exact distance "Gamers" need to exclude anyone who doesn't fit in with how they conceptualize themselves. This includes excluding women, as many gamers somehow blame women for the fact that they're unattractive and uniteresting. Really, at this point I'm really left to wonder what value is left in being included as a "Gamer". If there is any it is certainly quite limited. The label is so toxic and the broader community so out of touch with reality asking to be considered a gamer is a bit like asking to be considered a member of the "Screaming Feces-Face Paint Club". I certainly wouldn't choose to identify as a "Gamer" anymore despite the fact I've played games all my life.
Let petulant neckbeards keep their little clubhouse, there really isn't any reason to want in it anyway. I'm sure the rest of the game-playing community can find a new label to settle into.
I think there is not quantity that we can assume for gamer.
What do we call someone that likes book and likes to read them alot. We call them an avid reader or bookers.
Someone that watches movies, and loves movies we call a movie goer.
I think what makes a gamer a gamer is their devotion to the game. You could play any game, but if you do it and consider it your hobby then you are a gamer.
If you play a certain amount of hours you could be considered a gamer. There should be no division between casual and hardcore gamers.
Melissia wrote: So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?
Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.
Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.
Here is the thing. The goal posts for qualifying as a "Gamer" are going to be moved the exact distance "Gamers" need to exclude anyone who doesn't fit in with how they conceptualize themselves. This includes excluding women, as many gamers somehow blame women for the fact that they're unattractive and uniteresting. Really, at this point I'm really left to wonder what value is left in being included as a "Gamer". If there is any it is certainly quite limited. The label is so toxic and the broader community so out of touch with reality asking to be considered a gamer is a bit like asking to be considered a member of the "Screaming Feces-Face Paint Club". I certainly wouldn't choose to identify as a "Gamer" anymore despite the fact I've played games all my life.
Let petulant neckbeards keep their little clubhouse, there really isn't any reason to want in it anyway. I'm sure the rest of the game-playing community can find a new label to settle into.
Co'tor Shas wrote: As in, are you:
a. making a joke about me saying what something means, and then saying that thing itself has no meaning.
or
b. not understanding a very simple matter.
I feel like I've inadvertently made another enemy somehow.
It wasn't an insult.
I meant exactly what I said with those 5 words. If you don't like that answer then, again, B.
1) Boob armour. ie. which can be anything from hardened leather to heavy plate armour either:
-providing coverage of the same extent as a mini skirt and bra, ie. about as useful as a glass hammer
-or if it is intended as something which is extensive enough to provide some form of actual protection, must be incomplete so as to reveal much cleavage and/or legs.
2) Female character dealing with trauma or psychological fallout from past event, has many issues, all cured in an instant by a good lovin' by lead male character.
Neither tof these tropes is exclusive to games, can be seen in plenty of TV' and books too. I don't have a problem with these things (what man can object to playing a lady warrior with boob armour right?) so much as I find them tiresomely cliched, In the same manner that I roll my eyes to heaven every time the bad guys take cover behind the explosive barrels...
Co'tor Shas wrote: As in, are you:
a. making a joke about me saying what something means, and then saying that thing itself has no meaning.
or
b. not understanding a very simple matter.
I feel like I've inadvertently made another enemy somehow.
It wasn't an insult.
I meant exactly what I said with those 5 words. If you don't like that answer then, again, B.
I'm just confused as to what made you make the remark. I'm fine with it, just confused.
And how could I even be mad at someone with JonTron as their avatar .
Chongara wrote: Let petulant neckbeards keep their little clubhouse, there really isn't any reason to want in it anyway. I'm sure the rest of the game-playing community can find a new label to settle into.
The thing is, I've been a "gamer" longer than most of the people you talk about have been alive, including identifying myself as one. Don't see why I'd want to give that up.
Chongara wrote: Let petulant neckbeards keep their little clubhouse, there really isn't any reason to want in it anyway. I'm sure the rest of the game-playing community can find a new label to settle into.
The thing is, I've been a "gamer" longer than most of the people you talk about have been alive, including identifying myself as one. Don't see why I'd want to give that up
Hey, fair enough. Seems the term has been pretty well co-opted by some real dinks though. I totally appreciate your willingness to keep fighting the good fight. Still I'm rapidly becoming convinced the term can't be salvaged. It'd be cool if I was wrong though.
Melissia wrote: So someone who is content to play NES/Genesis/etc games isn't "really" a gamer?
Funny... I've seen people who say that someone whom DOESN'T put time in to playing old classics isn't "really" a gamer.
Or people who say that console gamers aren't "really" gamers.
I believe that may be an example of No true Scotsman.
It's pretty silly...
I think people giving a gak about having a label is the silly thing here, who cares about labels when you are out of your teens and don't feel a desperate urge to fit in and be a part of some club?
I average about ten hours a week playing on something, but I don't think I have ever referred to myself as a "gamer." Those silly terms are reserved for professional businesswomen like Anita Sarkeesian that exist to make money by giving interviews because they can spit the term out and give themselves some credibility in the eyes of the clueless old fether that is interviewing them. They love labels and "buzzwords" that apparently say something about you.. "gamer" "goth" "straight-edger" "feminist" "misandrist" "neo con" etc etc ad-nauseum.
Play games, don't play games, does the term even matter? In me eyes, if you have a beer once a year at Christmas you are officially a drinker. If you occasionally have a bash on Tetris you are a gamer, but its utterly irrelevant in real terms because does anybody care?
Buzzwords... I've gak em. I'm a bloke who does things, that's enough for me, and it should be enough for you too.
Melissia wrote: Matty, there's so much wrong with that post that I just don't have the heart to even start with it...
Hey you know me, Im a black or white kinda guy.
Seriously though, why are you bothered about labeling yourself a gamer? You are what you say you are, there are no requirements.
Why not just "I'm a lass and sometime I play games and sometimes I walk the dog and sometimes I read books"
I don't understand why anyone outside of their teens really gives a flying feth about identifying with a buzzword club. I mean, we don't call ourselves "readers" or "dog walkers" do we?
Melissia wrote: Matty, there's so much wrong with that post that I just don't have the heart to even start with it...
Hey you know me, Im a black or white kinda guy.
Seriously though, why are you bothered about labeling yourself a gamer? You are what you say you are, there are no requirements.
Why not just "I'm a lass and sometime I play games and sometimes I walk the dog and sometimes I read books"
I don't understand why anyone outside of their teens really gives a flying feth about identifying with a buzzword club. I mean, we don't call ourselves "readers" or "dog walkers" do we?
A lot of people I know self identify as 'readers'.
mattyrm wrote: Hey you know me, Im a black or white kinda guy.
Seriously though, why are you bothered about labeling yourself a gamer? You are what you say you are, there are no requirements.
Why not just "I'm a lass and sometime I play games and sometimes I walk the dog and sometimes I read books"
I don't understand why anyone outside of their teens really gives a flying feth about identifying with a buzzword club. I mean, we don't call ourselves "readers" or "dog walkers" do we?
Stop using buzzwords like "buzzword".
I'm pretty sure there are people avid about reading books that they give themselves a title relating to it. There would likely be a title for enthusiastic dog owners. Such as those that participate their pets on dog shows.
People could use titles to fit in, they could also use it to describe a part of themselves. Like saying you're a slight germaphobe or a perfectionist. I doubt you would ask people the deeper meaning of why they call themselves a 'neat freak'. Plus I think it would be stupid if someone wanted to debate with me for why I call myself a Warhammer player when neckbeards exist or something.
Yeah I think that's the point of what I was saying, I just don't like the fething trendy way people speak nowadays. I like drawing, reading, and keeping my house tidy, but I don't call myself an artist, a reader or a "neat freak" and I'm simply saying that labels seem to me to be important to people obsessed with how others perceive them.
I have a bigger problem with people trying to denounce the worth of titles than I do with people labeling themselves as being cool, random, etc.
Since the latter can actually serve a function. But it's not like I care very much, I don't use labels as far as I know, unless I'm trying to end a discussion about me in as few words as possible.
I'm not sure, I've looked up the 2 definitions and I don't feel either is appropriate to describe what I'm being. Hmm, I suppose if I can't figure it out that would make it Obtuse then.
As in, are you:
a. making a joke about me saying what something means, and then saying that thing itself has no meaning.
or
b. not understanding a very simple matter.
Given you had to explain, what do you think the answer is?
mattyrm wrote: I don't understand why anyone outside of their teens really gives a flying feth about identifying with a buzzword club. I mean, we don't call ourselves "readers" or "dog walkers" do we?
No, but many people outside of their teens call themselves buzzwords like, say, cinephile, athlete, republican, atheist, …
And they can be pretty passionate about it too.
I really don't understand how candy crush and other incredibly simple games on cellphones are considered a "gateway" game when you can just boot up Warframe, World of Tanks, Team Fortress 2, etc on your computer that can run on virtually anything, and are free. Is there any evidence at all to even suggest that casual gamers actually "move up", or do they just still play cellphone games? Because I highly doubt they'd make such a jump given how unrelated the two are.
But you see a lot of the people who start on these games don't have a PC which they would consider using for gaming. So saying that there are better gateway games on a PC is pointless, especially considering that it requires more effort to get than to just go into the app store and download (Install steam, set up steam account, download or find the games actual website).
You are assuming that someone who is completely new to gaming as a whole already has knowledge about the existence of Steam or those free games.
mattyrm wrote: Yeah I think that's the point of what I was saying, I just don't like the fething trendy way people speak nowadays. I like drawing, reading, and keeping my house tidy, but I don't call myself an artist, a reader or a "neat freak" and I'm simply saying that labels seem to me to be important to people obsessed with how others perceive them.
Its an indentifier. Its not bad. And people want games to be a culture. Which it kind of is. Its a sub culture.
Are you saying my subculture is bigger than yours?
More seriously, I would not call movies a culture, I would not call sports a culture, so I would not call games a culture either.
mattyrm wrote: I'm simply saying that labels seem to me to be important to people obsessed with how others perceive them.
AKA Pretty much all of humanity. Seriously you say this like social perceptions aren't one of most important things to human life outside of our basic needs for food, water and shelter.
Compel wrote: I made a long post about that a while ago with my suggestions on it.
Short version is, if an jerk starts being a jerk. Just pipe and say, "dude, that's not cool."
Don't start 'white knighting' or anything well, quite frankly, creepy like that. Just a simple. "that's not cool" followed by citing Wheaton's Law.
Then get back to killing stuff or saving the galaxy or whatever you were doing.
I never understood what white knighting was.
White knighting is generally when white CIS males come to the deffense of white CIS women, since the white knights deems the women so feeble they are uncapable of holding their own grounds or opinion and needs rescuing... or similar variations thereof.
The irony is so thick you couldn't cut trough it with an angle grinder from both sides...
mattyrm wrote: Yeah I think that's the point of what I was saying, I just don't like the fething trendy way people speak nowadays. I like drawing, reading, and keeping my house tidy, but I don't call myself an artist, a reader or a "neat freak" and I'm simply saying that labels seem to me to be important to people obsessed with how others perceive them.
Labels are important for the purposes of differentiating and of course establishing one's identity, in the same way that Americans don't refer to themselves as "Continental Americans", but Texans, or Italians, etc.
I appreciate that the lables you're referring to are a lot less clear cut than the above, and while I see no harm in someone choosing between calling themselves a "board game geek", or a "gamer", yes it is silly when those people get into lengthy discussions about what constitutes a member of their label, because if they thouht about it , they'd realise the boundaries of such labels are arbitrary. A fine example I come across are fans of metal bands, getting into shouting matches about whether something is "symphonic metal" or "power metal.
mattyrm wrote: Yeah I think that's the point of what I was saying, I just don't like the fething trendy way people speak nowadays. I like drawing, reading, and keeping my house tidy, but I don't call myself an artist, a reader or a "neat freak" and I'm simply saying that labels seem to me to be important to people obsessed with how others perceive them.
Labels are important for the purposes of differentiating and of course establishing one's identity, in the same way that Americans don't refer to themselves as "Continental Americans", but Texans, or Italians, etc.
I appreciate that the lables you're referring to are a lot less clear cut than the above, and while I see no harm in someone choosing between calling themselves a "board game geek", or a "gamer", yes it is silly when those people get into lengthy discussions about what constitutes a member of their label, because if they thouht about it , they'd realise the boundaries of such labels are arbitrary. A fine example I come across are fans of metal bands, getting into shouting matches about whether something is "symphonic metal" or "power metal.
Yes and everyone is free to use whatever ones they please, that was my point, I personally don't consider it important. I have never referred to myself as a "gamer" because I am not 15 and I dont feel a need to fit in, and I reckon I play more games than most. Conversely if you played golf on a Sega in 1997, you are free to call yourself a gamer if you so wish, my point was simply that I hate all these little clubs we invent as I hate the discussion about "what makes someone a X" and frequently wonder why people even bother to engage in said discussions.
If you can call yourself a Muslim when you don't pray very often and you occasionally like a pint (millions do), then you are free to call yourself whatever the feth you like. I was mainly referencing the whole "you aren't a proper gamer if you only play on the PC" or whatever the feth it was.
I just find the whole thing facile and wonder why people would bother concerning themselves with the opinions of people that ask such daft fething questions. I think"what makes you a gamer then?" is about as daft a question as "why are there still apes if we evolved from apes?"
Melissia wrote: When it could instead be both, Symphonic Power Metal (see: Rhapsody of Fire).
Exactly! -That's exactly what one level-headed poster told a bunch of fans and haters squabbling over an Amaranthe song. Not that it stopped them giving themselves brain aneurysms trying to out-shout eachother.
This is actually part of the problem with GG. There's a vocal subset of gamers who have a pretty narrow definition of "gamer", and it is defined, basically, as "those who agree with us", while discounting the vast majority of video-game-playing people (which is the definition of the term to me).
This sub-set of gamers is rather vociferously and fiercely defending this erroneous concept of shared culture... which, in the end, is not surprising, because for a lot of these people, they don't have anything left, outside of this self-identity. Apart from the ones who are truly trolling (and thus posting inflammatory statements purely for the attention), those of this sub-set apparently lack the social skills to get on with other people outside their sub-culture (which is defined as male, white, player of a certain, select list of VG titles), or identifies with this group's definition of "gamer", regardless of their actual lifestyle habits, and regardless of objective facts.
Psienesis wrote: This is actually part of the problem with GG. There's a vocal subset of gamers who have a pretty narrow definition of "gamer", and it is defined, basically, as "those who agree with us", while discounting the vast majority of video-game-playing people (which is the definition of the term to me).
This sub-set of gamers is rather vociferously and fiercely defending this erroneous concept of shared culture... which, in the end, is not surprising, because for a lot of these people, they don't have anything left, outside of this self-identity. Apart from the ones who are truly trolling (and thus posting inflammatory statements purely for the attention), those of this sub-set apparently lack the social skills to get on with other people outside their sub-culture (which is defined as male, white, player of a certain, select list of VG titles), or identifies with this group's definition of "gamer", regardless of their actual lifestyle habits, and regardless of objective facts.
I agree with your post, however I personally have a slightly stricter definition for "gamer". To me, a gamer is one who games on a console, or PC, or TT games. And by PC, I don't mean Facebook games, or mobile apps on the phone. To me, a "gamer" is one who has made an invested interest in games, ie. They've bought their X Box, Playstation, Steam software, or Origin or CD Rom, and the like, even if they really only have a casual interest in those things; there is still a greater level of investment into the games than someone who just purchased more lives on Candy Crush or Farmville (if that's even a thing still)
Psienesis wrote: This is actually part of the problem with GG. There's a vocal subset of gamers who have a pretty narrow definition of "gamer", and it is defined, basically, as "those who agree with us", while discounting the vast majority of video-game-playing people (which is the definition of the term to me).
This sub-set of gamers is rather vociferously and fiercely defending this erroneous concept of shared culture... which, in the end, is not surprising, because for a lot of these people, they don't have anything left, outside of this self-identity. Apart from the ones who are truly trolling (and thus posting inflammatory statements purely for the attention), those of this sub-set apparently lack the social skills to get on with other people outside their sub-culture (which is defined as male, white, player of a certain, select list of VG titles), or identifies with this group's definition of "gamer", regardless of their actual lifestyle habits, and regardless of objective facts.
Honestly I think the "GAMERS ARE DED" was a show that journalists are corrupt as hell and ultimately immature little brats for the most part when it comes to gaming journalism. I also think that this is the same fault that ruins titles at large including feminism which has basically gotten dragged through the mud. What saddens me is that I actually like the concept of gamers are dead. Define a gamer. What is a gamer? Somebody that just plays SNES games? Does it include casual players that really only play facebook/android/apple games? Does it not? In all reality, all gamer really means is that you play games be it "hardcore", "core", or "casual". Now then, let's argue that a gamer doesn't include somebody that just plays one game or just facebook games. Even then, we have that same tribal attitude. You've got your PC elitists, your console freaks, and everything else. It's basically just a mess of tribalism.
On a side note, reading up on it I frankly don't see why publishers think that making a female = the main character and then kiss a guy or girl or whatever is automatically going to crash sales. I mean, maybe I'm delusional but honestly I would have rather had Mass Effect's male character be the female. Don't know why but I always liked her more. Toss on the fact that games like FO, Skyrim, etc where people get options there's actually a significant number of males that will play females just because they want to (and the models aren't even really sexual most of the time in either of those games if I can remember). So really I can't help but be perplexed why developers think it's that much of an issue. Honestly I'd love to hear an explanation of why publishers really think that sex/race/ethnicity/sexuality really influence it. Especially sicne a lot of main characters are often dull, bland, and empty of characterization or just basically have the most stereotypical characteristics to push forth the plot.
EDIT: Huh, I was looking it up and apparently femshep wasn't as commonly played as I expected. Apparently it approached almost 20%. Honestly it somewhat surprises me considering I've largely heard people prefer femshep over maleshep.
Bethesda and Bioware are, in most cases for most of their games, somewhat on the leading edge of inclusion, in that their main characters are defined by their stories, and can be of either gender.
Even KOTOR, for example, has a canon appearance/gender for Revan, but you are not constrained to that, and can even slightly change the story of KOTOR 2, which also had a canon story behind the Jedi Exile, by dictating what gender your KOTOR 1 Revan was, and what decisions you made at certain points.
Of course, then we have a "canon" male Revan and the "canon" female Exile in The Old Republic... but, if you like, you can comment to Revan "I thought you were a woman" when you meet him, since it is 300 years later.
... basically non-event that some immature brats used as an excuse to justify gaking everywhere and harassing even more fervently the people they disliked.
StarTrotter wrote: EDIT: Huh, I was looking it up and apparently femshep wasn't as commonly played as I expected. Apparently it approached almost 20%. Honestly it somewhat surprises me considering I've largely heard people prefer femshep over maleshep.
Maleshep was the "Default", so the choice was biased towards it. It was on the packaging until the third game-- and even then it was the default packaging, with femshep being only an alternate cover-- and it was on the advertisements as well.
It shouldn't be surprising that it was that low, given this-- Shepard was assumed to be male by the marketing team and was defaulted to male by the game. But compared to that, imagine a game where the default character was female, and you had to go in to a customization menu in order to change her to male, and which all the packaging showed the default female, and all the advertising, press releases, interviews, etc. assumed you were playing a female character. One could reasonably expect a percentage of people to just click through to start the game instead of mucking about with customization, or would assume that the game was primarily developed for the female rather than male protagonist..
... basically non-event that some immature brats used as an excuse to justify gaking everywhere and harassing even more fervently the people they disliked.
Well, it was certainly an event for me, in that it showed that sites like Kotaku and the others had no interest in my 'business' and I have avoided them since. I didn't gak anywhere or harass anyone about it.
I thought the women and minorities who were derided as sock puppets for supporting GG was a far more interesting turn of events though. Now that was immature brats gaking everywhere and harassing people just for disagreeing with them.
Get off the topic of gamergate please. This thread does not deal with it. IF you wish to discuss gamergate. Go to reddit or ask a mod for permission to open a gamergate thread up. Just be aware people will get heated about it.
Thank you
GamerGate is an issue and I understand that there is a problem in games media, but lets face it has very little to do with representation of women. It is a problem with games media, ethics and harassment.
So with that in mind.
Women in games need more representation......
Now lets switch over from that to.
How is the games industry including women going? (do not bring up Zoey Quinn) Would an introduction of more women in the industry help change this?
Should the old stereotype of programmers being woman, make a come back?
What should education do to make programming more appealing? Or anything in education become more appealing for games media?
Should more women be represented in the games media? How should we go about this?
How about the representation of female protagonists? Are they more memorable then men?
Should writing be improved in games overall?
"those who agree with us"
I could make fun of some many things about that.
Mostly Tumblr users and the internet in general
I would point you to atheism + something eerily similar to the gamergate issue.
Sure. Once Games Journalism bites the dust. Which it is by the looks of it. (mostly Gawker by the looks of it. But lets face we are all better off without gawker, nothing of value will be lost if they go down)
basically non-event that some immature brats used as an excuse to justify gaking everywhere and harassing even more fervently the people they disliked.
Hey look ma! Someone is Generalizing and using a fallacy at the same time!
Black and white fallacy by the looks of it. Simplifying it to such a degree that it is easily understandable *Basically*.
Anyway. The problem I feel is that anyone saying that statement needs to rethink and reread. But this thread is about women representation. Not harassment of them.
Melissia wrote: When it could instead be both, Symphonic Power Metal (see: Rhapsody of Fire).
Symphonic electro raggadeath progressive black melodic indus pagan doomgrind metalcore! With a side of jazz.
[edit]Oh, sorry, I forgot the most important one. Brutal symphonic electro raggadeath progressive black melodic indus pagan doomgrind metalcore![/edit]
Anyone played Brütal Legend here? They had weirdly chosen “genre” of the different metal songs you can unlock .
And they will therefore refute your refutations. And bang, the thread is now about GamerGate, congrats!
Also what is this thing about atheism you were talking about?
Melissia wrote: Ah, I see, just last-word-isms then. Drop it, Ash.
Basically. I was ending the discussion on GG.
Lets face it GG is a huge issue. And I am quite tired of discussing it. Mostly because I got harassed directly because of what I thought on it.
So I would like to drop it.
lso what is this thing about atheism you were talking about?
Its a whole seperate issue it is basically a feminist that proclaimed at an atheist occassion that she was harassed, at a bar. And then had to spend 5 minutes on a elevator with another guy. She didn't tell security about the problem, she literally went and started blogging about it.
And created atheism plus its literally the dumbest thing I've ever seen.
A horrible idea developed to combine several movements: atheism, feminism, L.G.B.T., social justice, and skepticism. The idea is poor because:
1) These individual movements have differing frames of reference and goals 2) It seeks to divide established groups into a minority of minorities
-Not all atheists are skeptics, not all skeptics are feminist, not all feminist and atheist, etc. 3) It alienates supporters of each movement, which likely outnumbers the A+ members in all cases.
-Example: feminism moving to A+ would alienate religious feminist
Atheism only address one question, is belief in a deity or deities supported by evidence, which is why it’s powerful. Atheism does not provide a world view about how to live nor should it. There are existing terms for these other movements and the combination of all social justice issues. It’s called “social equality” and” humanism”. Atheism plus is a divisive movement started by short sighted-power seeking Prima Donnas looking to hijack and existing movement (atheism) for personal glory and intellectual bigotry.
It was very dogmatic and was basically a push by outside feminists to try and make Atheism more welcoming.
But it failed tremendously because the Atheists banded together against it. And the feminist movement barely had a three hundred people in it.
It got to the point were it was so ridiculous and following the tumblr feminist ideas that it was just dumb... It felt like occupy wall street all over again.
And back onto the threads point in a similar vein
So with that in mind.
Women in games need more representation......
Now lets switch over from that to.
How is the games industry including women going? (do not bring up Zoey Quinn) Would an introduction of more women in the industry help change this?
Should the old stereotype of programmers being woman, make a come back?
What should education do to make programming more appealing? Or anything in education become more appealing for games media?
Should more women be represented in the games media? How should we go about this?
How about the representation of female protagonists? Are they more memorable then men?
A horrible idea developed to combine several movements: atheism, feminism, L.G.B.T., social justice, and skepticism.
I could definitely support that.
Asherian Command wrote: It was very dogmatic and was basically a push by outside feminists to try and make Atheism more welcoming.
Outside feminists? I can hardly imagine a non-atheist pretending to be an atheist. That would mean, if only by lips rather than by heart, forsaking their precious gods. Cannot do that.
Asherian Command wrote: How is the games industry including women going? (do not bring up Zoey Quinn) Would an introduction of more women in the industry help change this?
Should the old stereotype of programmers being woman, make a come back?
The old stereotype of programmers being women? Do you mean when they used secretaries to type those programs on punched cards, or do you mean back when lady Ada Lovelace was basically discovering coding? Or something else entirely that I have not heard of?
Anyhow, that video was interesting.
Thank you I have some questions that are already there that you have gladly ignored.
The old stereotype of programmers being women? Do you mean when they used secretaries to type those programs on punched cards, or do you mean back when lady Ada Lovelace was basically discovering coding? Or something else entirely that I have not heard of? Anyhow, that video was interesting.
A long while ago programming was a field in which women could engage in. It wasn't until rise of mainstream video games that woman were kind of pushed out of it. As many of the earliest programmers were all women. Infact women are usually the best programmers we have quite a few women in the industry that are more revolutionary than their male peers.
Asherian Command wrote: It wasn't until rise of mainstream video games that woman were kind of pushed out of it.
Really? When do you consider video game became mainstream? Because when I look at the history if stuff like Arpanet, Unix, C, C++, Gnu, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and so on, I see mostly men. All of those predates or are contemporary to the release of the first Mario Bros game.
Asherian Command wrote: It wasn't until rise of mainstream video games that woman were kind of pushed out of it.
Really? When do you consider video game became mainstream? Because when I look at the history if stuff like Arpanet, Unix, C, C++, Gnu, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, and so on, I see mostly men. All of those predates or are contemporary to the release of the first Mario Bros game.
During WW2 ever since most of the men were away. Women took up the roles and the first programmers were mainly women. As most computers at the time were fething huge, they need a very big operational staff.
That whole stereotype of men being the first programmers is completely false. Binary was the first actual computer language, and is what all the programming codes actually look at the very basic level. They are just different ways of communicating binary. It make look different but it is still using the same base code that was set up in WW2.
it seems to have happened quite earlier than that, or we do have a very, very different view of what mainstream means. The switch happened before Pong!
(Also pretty damn sure the processors in 1945 has a very different set of instructions that they do now, so neither the same source code nor the same binary code.)
it seems to have happened quite earlier than that, or we do have a very, very different view of what mainstream means. The switch happened before Pong! (Also pretty damn sure the processors in 1945 has a very different set of instructions that they do now, so neither the same source code nor the same binary code.)
Thats what I meant XD
Somewhere near the thirty minute mark TB starts talking about sexism and women in games as characters.
He's view is that sexy women are postive. Slut shaming is stupid, and women like bayonetta are in control and have agency.
Asherian Command wrote: He's view is that sexy women are postive. Slut shaming is stupid, and women like bayonetta are in control and have agency.
And my view, that you refuse to even acknowledge, is that it is actually way more complex than a simple dichotomy of “sexy women = good, non-sexy women = bad” or the other way around “sexy women = bad, non-sexy women = good”. Why talk with you when you refuse to even read and understand my arguments?
Asherian Command wrote: He's view is that sexy women are postive. Slut shaming is stupid, and women like bayonetta are in control and have agency.
And my view, that you refuse to even acknowledge, is that it is actually way more complex than a simple dichotomy of “sexy women = good, non-sexy women = bad” or the other way around “sexy women = bad, non-sexy women = good”. Why talk with you when you refuse to even read and understand my arguments?
No I do. I acknowledge it. I am just arguing against it.
I hate cracked. It is literally the most BS I have ever seen.
I got more of a kick from kotaku calling Bayonnetta sex gak toy.
(She's not, if you have played the game you would know she is in control of her sexuality and treats men as objects, she is showing off for herself. she may seem like it in the cinematics, but judging a game based solely on its cinematics. I just can't comprehend.) *cough* Antia * cough*
Asherian Command wrote:she is showing off for herself
Without wanting to remove every single instance of a sexualised character design ... this justification is about as sensible as "I'm wearing this chainmail bikini because I don't want to sacrifice agility"
Asherian Command wrote:she is showing off for herself
Without wanting to remove every single instance of a sexualised character design ... this justification is about as sensible as "I'm wearing this chainmail bikini because I don't want to sacrifice agility"
She kills god with a gun.
and she kills angels and basically is the most powerfulest women in gaming. Period.
Sorry samus, but can you kill gods? nope. The world is over the top, and the main character is over the top.
If you don't like a sex postitive woman who was designed by a woman. (Yep, the main character designer is infact, A WOMAN) Then do not tell me it is a bad thing to have a sex positive female protagonist who can basically kick anyones ass.
VorpalBunny74 wrote: I'm curious, would a woman cosplaying as Bayonnetta be sexist, or empowering?
I mean why do girls cosplay as the character of kill la kill who is basically wearing nothing? Its empowerment. If they are working hard to look that good, they are doing it to feel empowered.
games are all about empowerment or living in a world or a story or immersion. I am not playing bayonneta because she's sexy. I play the game because it has solid mechanics and is absolutely beautiful. It has more art in than I could possibly count.
I am glad Ash is carrying on his glorious crusade to:
- misrepresent my opinion
- still misrepresent my opinion even after I made it clear once again in reaction to his first post
- walk away like nothing happened
“Of course, most of us don't need special tactics to get laid. It turns out "not being an donkey-cave" and "meeting other people" both work pretty well.”
This makes me very sad. Well, no, I was already very sad, but it is not helping.
Asherian Command wrote: Sometimes they are ill-researched. And misinformed on several subjects.
It seems that #3 doesn't just apply to defenses of sexism
Find me someone who has never been wrong, and I'll show you Jesus Christ (though why he's here and not Rapturing me off this rock I don't know).
But seriously. Is the irony of your response to that article this lost on you?
I don't trust Cracked to tell me whether I am sexist or not. If they are sociologists and people who have studied in depth yes. But I will not listen to people who do not cite their sources correctly and do not have a professional talking about it.
If you are going onto a sensitive topic you better pretty damn source it correctly.
I am glad Ash is carrying on his glorious crusade to: - misrepresent my opinion - still misrepresent my opinion even after I made it clear once again in reaction to his first post - walk away like nothing happened
Yet again. I am not talking to you. I am talking to everyone else.
I understand your opinion. I am just ignoring it until I can make a proper response to it.
I think that the very nature of cosplay is empowering, Vorpal.
Bayonetta's depiction or classification has not been agreed upon. Some see her as a great example; others think that she is all that is wrong with the industry. Much ink has been spilt on this.
AdeptSister wrote: I think that the very nature of cosplay is empowering, Vorpal.
Bayonetta's depiction or classification has not been agreed upon. Some see her as a great example; others think that she is all that is wrong with the industry. Much ink has been spilt on this.
Which is what I agree with. People agree and some disagree. No ones sure what to feel. We can't really say she is the wrong or the right direction.
But I blame it on Americans being too afraid of talking about anything sexual.
Cosplay is empowering. I mean I know tons of girls that dress up as video game characters. Who are 'objectified' or outwardly 'sexual'. Because it is empowering for them to look and feel like that character. Because most of them are badasses.
I don't trust Cracked to tell me whether I am sexist or not.
And pray tell, where did they do that?
If they are sociologists and people who have studied in depth yes
By and large, I find Cracked's writers to be among the most articulate and informed writers I've ever found on a Blog. The biggest thing standing out in my mind that they messed up was when one of them tried arguing Sauron was the good guy but that at least sort of could make sense... Assuming the writer never read the Silmarillion.
But I will not listen to people who do not cite their sources correctly and do not have a professional talking about it.
<insert Bender laugh harder>
Pretty much every Cracked article, dealing with fact rather than opinion anyway, is littered with links (and almost always to academic, government, and mainstream news sources).
Sorry they didn't submit it in Chicago Tribune/MLA format (APA is stupid fyi).
But yes. It does seem the irony is that lost on you.
The idea of "empowerment" has always irritated me. If you are wearing non-normal clothing, or cosplaying something like Kill la Kill, or Bayonetta, you are wearing it because you like the character and design, not to make some political statement.
This is equal parts terrifying and disappointing. It's terrifying because some people genuinely think the only reason you wouldn't want women to walk around naked is because you don't want to jam your dick in them. They cannot conceive of any other reason for female clothing, because they've spent less time with women than the Eagle moon lander. It's amazing that such ridiculous sexism exists in someone who isn't stomping around killing wizards and slaying dragons.
If you use the word you. I am talking to you. If someone for instance used neutral words then they are not talking to the audience they are being neutral.
This is called being picky. Through reasonable inference that means that they unwillingly called us sexist.
It happens and is why you need to check your bloody work.
By and large, I find Cracked's writers to be among the most articulate and informed writers I've ever found on a Blog. The biggest thing standing out in my mind that they messed up was when one of them tried arguing Sauron was the good guy but that at least sort of could make sense... Assuming the writer never read the Silmarillion.
Thats your opinion. I don't trust them because they always write only click bait articles, and sometimes they have completely wrong historical data.
<insert Bender laugh harder>
Pretty much every Cracked article, dealing with fact rather than opinion anyway, is littered with links (and almost always to academic, government, and mainstream news sources).
Sorry they didn't submit it in Chicago Tribune/MLA format (APA is stupid fyi ).
But yes. It does seem the irony is that lost on you.
Funny thing you need to follow citation formats. Its not that hard. If I have to for my papers write sources in everything, so should a 'blogger'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: The idea of "empowerment" has always irritated me. If you are wearing non-normal clothing, or cosplaying something like Kill la Kill, or Bayonetta, you are wearing it because you like the character and design, not to make some political statement.
Empowerment is not a political statement. It makes you feel like a hero or like that hero.
They are not making a statement all the time, but it is about feeling powerful.
Asherian Command wrote: I understand your opinion. I am just ignoring it until I can make a proper response to it.
No, you do not understand it. Or else, you are purposefully regularly misrepresenting it, which is worse than not understanding it. Also curious about what you need but do not have yet to make a proper response to it.
Asherian Command wrote:she is showing off for herself
Without wanting to remove every single instance of a sexualised character design ... this justification is about as sensible as "I'm wearing this chainmail bikini because I don't want to sacrifice agility"
AdeptSister wrote: I think that the very nature of cosplay is empowering, Vorpal.
Bayonetta's depiction or classification has not been agreed upon. Some see her as a great example; others think that she is all that is wrong with the industry. Much ink has been spilt on this.
Thank you. That makes sense.
I'm just foreseeing (and not liking) a possible future where female cosplayers start getting shamed by both extremes.
Asherian Command wrote: I understand your opinion. I am just ignoring it until I can make a proper response to it.
No, you do not understand it. Or else, you are purposefully regularly misrepresenting it, which is worse than not understanding it. Also curious about what you need but do not have yet to make a proper response to it.
Your last sentence did not make much sense. Could you retype it?
Could you restate it in its entirety and reword it. So we can reach an agreement?
AdeptSister wrote: I think that the very nature of cosplay is empowering, Vorpal.
Bayonetta's depiction or classification has not been agreed upon. Some see her as a great example; others think that she is all that is wrong with the industry. Much ink has been spilt on this.
Thank you. That makes sense.
I'm just foreseeing (and not liking) a possible future where female cosplayers start getting shamed by both extremes.
That is happening.
We got two feminists. Lets call one Social Fem and the other Pos Fem.
Social Fem finds it unacceptable that women dress up for cosplay saying that cosplay is specifically targeting men.
Pos Fem disagrees and finds it totally acceptable for a woman to show off and to dress up however they choose.
I mean this is the states we have arguments about what a woman should do during abortion. And someone argue it is their choice and not the mothers.
Asherian Command wrote: If you use the word you. I am talking to you. If someone for instance used neutral words then they are not talking to the audience they are being neutral.
And #5, and you're still not getting the irony.
click bait articles
This phrase means nothing beyond "I dislike this article's subject matter." All articles are click bait. It's why they're there. For you to click on them. Not much point to writing an article on the internet if no one is going to click the link.
and sometimes they have completely wrong historical data.
Yeah. Calling you on that. Their historical articles are some of their best, and they get their material very very right. I've read through the entire list and found no glaring errors (a few minor but when I say minor I mean minor).
Though, they seem to have a serious hard on for dragging Thomas Edison through the mud, even more so than most people who point out Edison was a tool.
Funny thing you need to follow citation formats. Its not that hard. If I have to for my papers write sources in everything, so should a 'blogger'
.
And as with the dictionary, the person demanding accurate citation is usually the one who actually doesn't care about citation, and simply wants to find silly reasons to ignore something. On the internet, a hyperlink is just as good if not better than an in line citation because it lets you go straight to the source and see what it says.
Asherian Command wrote: If you use the word you. I am talking to you. If someone for instance used neutral words then they are not talking to the audience they are being neutral.
And #5, and you're still not getting the irony.
click bait articles
This phrase means nothing beyond "I dislike this article's subject matter." All articles are click bait. It's why they're there. For you to click on them. Not much point to writing an article on the internet if no one is going to click the link.
and sometimes they have completely wrong historical data.
Yeah. Calling you on that. Their historical articles are some of their best, and they get their material very very right. I've read through the entire list and found no glaring errors (a few minor but when I say minor I mean minor).
Though, they seem to have a serious hard on for dragging Thomas Edison through the mud, even more so than most people who point out Edison was a tool.
Funny thing you need to follow citation formats. Its not that hard. If I have to for my papers write sources in everything, so should a 'blogger'
.
And as with the dictionary, the person demanding accurate citation is usually the one who actually doesn't care about citation, and simply wants to find silly reasons to ignore something. On the internet, a hyperlink is just as good if not better than an in line citation because it lets you go straight to the source and see what it says.
If i don't get it. Explain it. Shesh. Do not be illusive.
I found one of their historical articles. And then I found out. Oh wait. This isn't slate. huh. Okay nevermind.
A chainmail bikini is not going to help with that. Like, at all.
If you want to see a good justification for sexy costumes, just look at how Lollipop Chainsaw or Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! do it. Yeah, the the best and easiest answer for sexy costumes is “because they are sexy”, rather than trying to come up with stupid, nonsensical explanations for them.
(Also, Asherian might to watch this movie if only for that one scene with Vegetable (his real name), for a good idea of something actually made for female gaze .)
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Aaaaand you somehow linked that to abortion. Which makes total sense, if you close down your brain.
I am saying sex is a dirty word in the states.
They close down their brains whenever they talk about these issues. There are sometimes its just douh Just do this. the fact there is still discussions on cosplay or women sexuality is just stupid.
America the land of the 20 years behind on social issues. Yeahhhh
I find the fact that men. Straight men, have any word to speak about female sexuality and say they find it 'offensive'.
It is deeply sad to see that because it is just stupid.
If you wish to talk about the issues please do not discredit them.
I am not talking about anyone here.
just kind of angry we are having this conversation and saying that only one opinion is right.
And I say that is nonsense, given all the tons of sexual stuff you can see even in mainstream US media.
I am talking stuff like this or that. And that is just the mainstream part. I am not even sending you Troma movies to the face yet - ever seen Poultrygeist ?
And I say that is nonsense, given all the tons of sexual stuff you can see even in mainstream US media.
I am talking stuff like this or that. And that is just the mainstream part. I am not even sending you Troma movies to the face yet - ever seen Poultrygeist ?
America is pretty bad on sexual things. I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.
Why? They are freaking rich, they have very good infrastructure and everything. The only thing on which they are extremely backward is social issues.
Asherian Command wrote: But If you actually live in the states. Anyone that is sexually active is shamed by the media. Just look up at the celebrities.
Can you name one, just one, U.S. celebrity above the age of 25 that is confirmed as NOT sexually active?
Everyone above that age is supposed to be sexually active, at least until they become too old. I know, because I am above 25 and not sexually active…
Asherian Command wrote: Plus i think this is a difference between living in the states and not living in the states.
Co'tor Shas wrote: America is pretty bad on sexual things. I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.
It's somewhat strange how much America is stuck in Victorian Culture in that way. On the one hand, America loves it with "sex sells" and all that other nonsense. On the other hand, it's a big hush hush drama fest and oh boy if you show some skin and if there's sex wait to see that rating go to an R. Murdering dozens of people? Eh not so much. Actually it reminds me of at time where I went to Germany. Was flipping through the channels when I found one was a porn channel. Let's just say I was actually astonished that it was even on television (and the hotel wasn't even shabby).
Also get Sex Tape out of here. Right on out. That was not funny, it was awkward, and it made me more bitter than anything else. To the moon with it!
Co'tor Shas wrote: I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.
Can you give references on that? Because apart from Kirikou getting problems to be broadcasted in the states, I cannot see anything like it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.
Can you give references on that? Because apart from Kirikou getting problems to be broadcasted in the states, I cannot see anything like it.
I forget the movie now...it may have been Platoon, or Apocalypse Now or something similar that I was watching on a German TV station while I was stationed there, and the channel edited out much of the actual violence that is seen in the "DVD" version in the US.
On the flip side, "Eyes Wide Shut" had to be heavily edited in order to receive an R rating in the States. It isn't a violent film, it's just that, apparently there was a TON of nudity of the type we "puritans" can not handle
Co'tor Shas wrote: I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.
Can you give references on that? Because apart from Kirikou getting problems to be broadcasted in the states, I cannot see anything like it.
I doubt it, but I'll look. It's just something I remeber reading, but I may have watched it. There was this one documentary on the US rating system I watched, This Film is Not Yet Rated, and it may have been in there.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I forget the movie now...it may have been Platoon, or Apocalypse Now or something similar that I was watching on a German TV station while I was stationed there, and the channel edited out much of the actual violence that is seen in the "DVD" version in the US.
That is Germany, not Europe. I have no idea how Germany rates movies. Also, TV versus DVD is pretty damn different. I can find you a bunch of movies you will find on DVD, but pretty much never ever on mainstream TV channels .
Out of curiosity, I went to check how Baise-moi was rated in different countries. Apparently, it managed to be broadcast in the U.S., causing no controversy.
Asherian Command wrote:If you don't like a sex postitive woman who was designed by a woman. (Yep, the main character designer is infact, A WOMAN) Then do not tell me it is a bad thing to have a sex positive female protagonist who can basically kick anyones ass.
What?
I'm having trouble following what you are trying to argue here. I'm not supposed to tell you that it's a bad thing because I'm having an opinion?
CthuluIsSpy wrote:They can't hurt you if they can't touch you
Ironically enough, that is the in-game justification I'm argueing whenever there's a debate about night elf armour in Warcraft. I'd still never use them as an example for character designs not intended to pander to a male audience, tho.
Asherian Command wrote:Empowerment is not a political statement. It makes you feel like a hero or like that hero.
They are not making a statement all the time, but it is about feeling powerful.
Which is why that comment made no sense in this context. Non-professional cosplayers dress up like their favourite characters because they like the characters, not any nudity. How much or how little they wear does not factor into it and is, at best, something that is considered solely when comparing it to their personal comfort level in regards to how far they'd go for an accurate depiction.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Can you name one, just one, U.S. celebrity above the age of 25 that is confirmed as NOT sexually active?
I think he actually has a point there - not so much about being sexual active, but a general hypocrisy which encourages a certain level of sexual and sexified depiction, but goes berzerk if you go beyond a certain line. Case in point: Nipplegate. It's like the public cheers thinks you're boring for exposing less than 50% of your body, then cheers you on for a scale between 51 and 90%, and suddenly 91-100% you're a slut. Not to mention the deep, underlying demand for porn of all sorts, contrasted by an outwardly pious appearance. How many politicians gave themselves a family-friendly image, publicly demanding harsher treatment against "sinners" in order to appeal to the people, only to stumble over affairs with prostitutes?
Fortunately I personally know enough US-Americans to know differently, but just from such events you could easily get the image that it's a country of Two-Faces. It's a worrisome duality that must put the society under tremendous stress as it requires people to hide more and more of their private life because even though you know everybody does it you must maintain that clean public image of yours.
I don't really understand what he's trying to prove throwing this remark into the thread. If anything, it only goes to show how people have gotten used to the idea of women - be them real or artificial - existing as eyecandy for them to drool at. Look around you, look at the advertisements, the posters, the movies, the TV shows. It's pretty glaring if one just opens their eyes.
Once more, I'm not argueing that characters like Bayonetta should not exist - but I just don't see how someone could think they are positive examples of female characters in gaming. That's, like .. citing Sasha Grey as a positive example for women in movies. Just acknowledge what they're for, and move on.
Is there some kind of rule saying anything else than Watergate ending with Gate while there is no actual gate involved is stupid?
Lynata wrote: If anything, it only goes to show how people have gotten used to the idea of women - be them real or artificial - existing as eyecandy for them to drool at. Look around you, look at the advertisements, the posters, the movies, the TV shows. It's pretty glaring if one just opens their eyes.
Meh. He does not seem to understand the difference between this singer showing her ass and that singer showing her ass (okay, did not want to link to the original one, that one is so much better, but still ). If one is empowerment, the other must be too, right? Nope.
Seriously, a riot grrrl like movement in video game would give so many gamers an aneurysm. I mean, Anita Sarkeesian is aggressive and man-hating? How would they react to that?
think he actually has a point there - not so much about being sexual active, but a general hypocrisy which encourages a certain level of sexual and sexified depiction, but goes berzerk if you go beyond a certain line. Case in point: Nipplegate. It's like the public cheers thinks you're boring for exposing less than 50% of your body, then cheers you on for a scale between 51 and 90%, and suddenly 91-100% you're a slut. Not to mention the deep, underlying demand for porn of all sorts, contrasted by an outwardly pious appearance. How many politicians gave themselves a family-friendly image, publicly demanding harsher treatment against "sinners" in order to appeal to the people, only to stumble over affairs with prostitutes?
Fortunately I personally know enough US-Americans to know differently, but just from such events you could easily get the image that it's a country of Two-Faces. It's a worrisome duality that must put the society under tremendous stress as it requires people to hide more and more of their private life because even though you know everybody does it you must maintain that clean public image of yours.
I don't really understand what he's trying to prove throwing this remark into the thread. If anything, it only goes to show how people have gotten used to the idea of women - be them real or artificial - existing as eyecandy for them to drool at. Look around you, look at the advertisements, the posters, the movies, the TV shows. It's pretty glaring if one just opens their eyes.
Once more, I'm not argueing that characters like Bayonetta should not exist - but I just don't see how someone could think they are positive examples of female characters in gaming. That's, like .. citing Sasha Grey as a positive example for women in movies. Just acknowledge what they're for, and move on.
I am saying mostly that it is this duality that we are fine showing someones head get cut off. But if someone takes off their clothes OH MY GOD SLUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.
Basically in games they are called a whore if they show a nipple.
I mean remember the mass effect controversy? You know this one?
OMG LIARA IS A SLUTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT
Basically that is a reaction a game that has a sex scene.
Funny thing they only used the male one, and not the female part you know because its FAUX news.
This is a problem I have with antia. She sounds like fox news to me. It literally reciprocates the same BS i have heard before.
She is using the same bloody argument that games are sexist.
They are not sexist, you are just an idiot if you think games like mass effect are sexist. You know where female characters are shown to be badasses.
Which is why that comment made no sense in this context. Non-professional cosplayers dress up like their favourite characters because they like the characters, not any nudity. How much or how little they wear does not factor into it and is, at best, something that is considered solely when comparing it to their personal comfort level in regards to how far they'd go for an accurate depiction.
Well I mean if you got why not flaunt it. If you have the body to show it off. Why the hell not? I mean I know girls that do that the whole time. They work had to wear that costume. Is basically what I am getting at.
What?
I'm having trouble following what you are trying to argue here. I'm not supposed to tell you that it's a bad thing because I'm having an opinion?
No its fine to disagree. I just will disagree that I think it is a bad thing.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I forget the movie now...it may have been Platoon, or Apocalypse Now or something similar that I was watching on a German TV station while I was stationed there, and the channel edited out much of the actual violence that is seen in the "DVD" version in the US.
That is Germany, not Europe. I have no idea how Germany rates movies. Also, TV versus DVD is pretty damn different. I can find you a bunch of movies you will find on DVD, but pretty much never ever on mainstream TV channels .
Out of curiosity, I went to check how Baise-moi was rated in different countries. Apparently, it managed to be broadcast in the U.S., causing no controversy.
Err... I know we Yankees aren't known for our geometry skills, but last I checked... Germany is in Europe, no?
And yes, Dvd/TV are totally different. In my example, again, I'm fairly certain it was Apocalypse Now, and in German TV they had edited out much of the actual on screen violence. In contrast, I've seen Apocalypse Now on TV in the states, and they edit out the "Playboy Bunny" scenes, but leave basically all of the violence in place.
Nope, she is saying games are using sexist tropes.
And?
I am pretty sure its just pure writing..... Not sexist tropes.
Or you know lazy writing. I don't think a writer is intentionally or unintentionally writing sexist tropes. They are using tropes. or cliches.
The fact is that there are more bloody examples of saving males in games. Than females. And people keep inflating the truth and saying only women are being saved in games.
I would like to point you... to every shooter on the planet... Thank you.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Err... I know we Yankees aren't known for our geometry skills, but last I checked... Germany is in Europe, no?
Geography. And you know there are a bunch of different countries in Europe, with sometime very different cultures, right? Much more so than in the U.S. We do not even speak the same language.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Err... I know we Yankees aren't known for our geometry skills, but last I checked... Germany is in Europe, no?
Geography. And you know there are a bunch of different countries in Europe, with sometime very different cultures, right? Much more so than in the U.S. We do not even speak the same language.
.
at least you caught my joke in there
And yes, I do realize fully that there's a ton of countries and cultures within Europe, but of the one's I've personally experienced, they tend to remove violence from media that could be "easily" viewed by young'uns but tend to view sex as normal and OK
Is there some kind of rule saying anything else than Watergate ending with Gate while there is no actual gate involved is stupid?
Watergate is a famous scandal, so a common inprompteu is to name various scandals ending with Gate. GaziGate. GamerGate. DoritoGate. Even a wiki article on it. We're American. Coming up with snazy names for things is kind of our thing. I mean, did you see that kick ass abbreviation we kicked out with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001?
I've seen people praise Bayonetta (including feminists) more because they celebrated how she doesn't really have an interest in males past teasing them, that she's strong, basically the mightiest character in the universe, and wears her sexuality. They've gone on about how it feels like she knows that she's sexy and she knows it.
So I can see why people would regard her as a positive character.
StarTrotter wrote: I've seen people praise Bayonetta (including feminists) more because they celebrated how she doesn't really have an interest in males past teasing them, that she's strong, basically the mightiest character in the universe, and wears her sexuality. They've gone on about how it feels like she knows that she's sexy and she knows it.
So I can see why people would regard her as a positive character.
The more interesting film that failed is Pacific Rim (which spawned the Mako Mori test, though that's hardly useful either).
No. The purpose of the Bechdel Test is to check 1) are women present in a film, and 2) do they do anything other than be about the men folk. And 2 is kind of questionable.
The more interesting film that failed is Pacific Rim (which spawned the Mako Mori test, though that's hardly useful either).
No. The purpose of the Bechdel Test is to check 1) are women present in a film, and 2) do they do anything other than be about the men folk. And 2 is kind of questionable.
1.It has to have at least two women in it,
2.who talk to each other,
3.about something besides a man.
That's the test. I'm talking about it's purpose. It's entirely possible for something to pass the test and still be sexist, simply because women talking about something other than a man still includes a lot of lee way for some sexist things to pop up.
All the test is ultimately useful for is what I described.
LordofHats wrote: That's the test. I'm talking about it's purpose. It's entirely possible for something to pass the test and still be sexist, simply because women talking about something other than a man still includes a lot of lee way for some sexist things to pop up.
All the test is ultimately useful for is what I described.
Oh I know its a limited like bare bones idea. It doesn't make feminist, or avoid sexist. Because pornos would automatically pass then too
Wait.....
Yeah seeing if women are represented equally to male characters.
If you still believe that the Bechdel test is there to determine if a specific movie is sexist or not, it is no wonder you do not understand anything Anita Sarkeesian is saying.
Some movie that did pass the test:
http://bechdeltest.com/view/5594/asian_school_girls/ Some movie that did not pass the test:
http://bechdeltest.com/view/4655/gravity/ Wake up, Ash, wake up! It is about trends, not individual movies/games.
Melissia wrote: Ash, the Bechdel Test is something that shows the existence of a trend, not a judgment call on any single film.
Read my later posts.
I did, they were ignorant and wrong.
Oh I know its a limited like bare bones idea. It doesn't make it feminist, or avoid being sexist. Because pornos would automatically pass then too
Wait.....
Yeah it is seeing if women are represented equally to male characters.
Its not a test to see if it is sexist or feminist. It is merely a test to see representation.
Its basically me talking about the idea and saying that certain things would pass which are clearly sexist.
If you still believe that the Bechdel test is there to determine if a specific movie is sexist or not, it is no wonder you do not understand anything Anita Sarkeesian is saying. Some movie that did pass the test: http://bechdeltest.com/view/5594/asian_school_girls/ Some movie that did not pass the test: http://bechdeltest.com/view/4655/gravity/ Wake up, Ash, wake up! It is about trends, not individual movies/games.
No your ignoring posts. And when I explained it better. So you sir are the moron. Because you keep ignoring the post. I Have showed you. I have literally said.
Same could be said about a lot of people in this thread :/
The problem I think is instead of assuming that is what I mean why not ask me if that is really what I mean instead of assuming a certain thing? Hmmmmm?
I will assume on Hybrid because whenever he is involved in the discussion he tries to center it around right and wrong which lets face it is bs. And should be completely ignored.
Asherian Command wrote: The problem I think is instead of assuming that is what I mean why not ask me if that is really what I mean instead of assuming a certain thing? Hmmmmm?
Yeah, great idea. What about not assuming that I believe women are never attracted to men bodies and actually ask me, or read my message where I explicitly say they are?
What about applying your own advice to yourself? Is that not something that sounds great?
) I just don't identify with the word gamer.
.
is going on.