You mean we tried to have a thread of this. Unfortunately these sorts of things tend to get drowned out Let's not call out others by name please--AgeOfEgos
Ahtman wrote: So a thread gets locked in one forum just to be reborn in another. Truly miracles do exist!
Woah! This is just like that time Jesus' thread got deleted and re-posted three days later! They had internet forums back then, right? My Bible trivia is rusty.
I dont know what the relevance of the videos in the OP are to the wider issue, it looks to me to be a mudslinging between individuals in a broken relationship played against a backdrop of gaming journalism.
For a better look at biased gaming journalism take a good look at the Angry Joe Show. Angry Joe tells it like it is with regards to developer policy, dishonest reviews and DLC 'whoring' as he likes to describe it.
Angry Joe is a one stop show for an honest review, as he is a reviewer you might not agree with all his opinions, I dont. But I believe he gives an honest go, looks at the games he reviews properly and isn't in the pockets of any game developer studio or their corporate masters.
With respect to Mechanical Crow please ignore the fake controversy of the OP, its vapour and doesn't address the issues gamers have with the low moral quality of gaming journalism.
The Zoey thing isn't a 'fake controversy', and it and of itself it is not a big controversy. What it is though is a lens, and it is the lens we're using today to see through to what games journalism is.
H.B.M.C. wrote: The Zoey thing isn't a 'fake controversy', and it and of itself it is not a big controversy. What it is though is a lens, and it is the lens we're using today to see through to what games journalism is.
90% of the smacktalk on the videos consisted of personal attacks, who had sex with who, and who lied to who, and who is a 'douche', to and fro ad nauseam and contributed remarkably little to gaming journalism for a topic supposedly all about gaming journalism.
It doesnt matter about who slept with which co-worker, they should keep it to themselves, what matters are the industry matters, and fair balanced reportage.
The real issues of gaming journalism are funded reviews that give overly positive outlooks on sporoned games by supposedly impartial gaming reviewers and critics, and the silence regarding unethical policy in games production and distribution.
Both of these can be addressed and neatly bypassed by taking the opinions of the independent games journalists both online and in the press who are not under financial support from the games industry.
Independents are there to be found and will provide all the news you could want from multiple opinions. The more mobile also visit the trade shows and have enough clout to get interviews. An example of one independent was given, there are others.
I couldnt give a gak about the 'Zoey thing' and can we well clued up with regards to gaming industry news without having to waste any time on a bitchy soap opera hijacking it.
This whole 'issue' arises because these reviewers think that somehow their private lives have become important. It's frankly self centred and delusional. If they want to discuss it or even blog it go ahead, if someone wanted to read their dirty underwear story so be it, but not under a claim that its gaming news.
Zoe Quinn did NOT sleep around with a few guys to get good reviews for her game. That's a lie.
Zoe Quinn is a terrible person. She purposefully faked a "raid" on her by an entire forum to then victimize herself and instrumentalize feminism in order to get publicity. Worst of all, she, the developer of the game "Depression Quest", a game that is supposed to give the player an idea of what a depression feels like, purposefully misled people by faking the "raid" of a messageboard that is mainly entitled to lonely men with emotional deficits. This display of lacking empathy is disgusting when at the same time, she claims to be oh-so-empathic with her game.
She slept with 1+ other guys despite being married, which makes her a you-totally-know-the-word-that-would-be-fitting-for-a-person-who-purposefully-sleeps-with-many-people-despite-being-in-a-relationship.
Depression Quest is a terrible game with justified bad ratings.
Nepotism has always been the problem of gaming "journalism", so I don't see why people are so upset about it now. The Zoe Quinn case isn't showing how bad gaming journalism is, it's about the giant impact of one invidiual playing the sexism card seems to have. I am utterly disgusted by:
a) the ridiculous actions taken by people to "attack" her. I am ashamed as a human being for people doing those things to her.
b) Zoe Quinn for faking sexist attacks and instrumentalizing feminism.
She doesn't deserve the things done to her, but she willingly provoked all of this to happen.
Zoe Quinn did NOT sleep around with a few guys to get good reviews for her game. That's a lie.
Zoe Quinn is a terrible person. She purposefully faked a "raid" on her by an entire forum to then victimize herself and instrumentalize feminism in order to get publicity. Worst of all, she, the developer of the game "Depression Quest", a game that is supposed to give the player an idea of what a depression feels like, purposefully misled people by faking the "raid" of a messageboard that is mainly entitled to lonely men with emotional deficits. This display of lacking empathy is disgusting when at the same time, she claims to be oh-so-empathic with her game.
She slept with 1+ other guys despite being married, which makes her a you-totally-know-the-word-that-would-be-fitting-for-a-person-who-purposefully-sleeps-with-many-people-despite-being-in-a-relationship.
Depression Quest is a terrible game with justified bad ratings.
Nepotism has always been the problem of gaming "journalism", so I don't see why people are so upset about it now. The Zoe Quinn case isn't showing how bad gaming journalism is, it's about the giant impact of one invidiual playing the sexism card seems to have. I am utterly disgusted by:
a) the ridiculous actions taken by people to "attack" her. I am ashamed as a human being for people doing those things to her.
b) Zoe Quinn for faking sexist attacks and instrumentalizing feminism.
She doesn't deserve the things done to her, but she willingly provoked all of this to happen.
And to think you could learn all there was to learn about actual gaming news, whats coming out and when, what is in development and which software is worth buying; without needing to know a single jot of info about this Zoe character or her detrators.
It's a soap opera, waved in our faces, not gaming journalism.
It's fifteen minutes are up, the games journalism clique should tell us what is being released on PC/XBox/PS4/Wii etc next month and give us an honest unsponsored review of it..
Orlanth wrote: ...the games journalism clique should tell us what is being released on PC/XBox/PS4/Wii etc next month and give us an honest unsponsored review of it..
Orlanth wrote: ...the games journalism clique should tell us what is being released on PC/XBox/PS4/Wii etc next month and give us an honest unsponsored review of it..
Well they won't, because gaming journalism isn't.
They seem more interested in pushing agendas, like that Anita "I don't play video games" Snarkeesian tumblr insanity.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The massive amounts of censorship is the most damning of evidence.
Orlanth wrote: I dont know what the relevance of the videos in the OP are to the wider issue, it looks to me to be a mudslinging between individuals in a broken relationship played against a backdrop of gaming journalism.
For a better look at biased gaming journalism take a good look at the Angry Joe Show. Angry Joe tells it like it is with regards to developer policy, dishonest reviews and DLC 'whoring' as he likes to describe it.
Angry Joe is a one stop show for an honest review, as he is a reviewer you might not agree with all his opinions, I dont. But I believe he gives an honest go, looks at the games he reviews properly and isn't in the pockets of any game developer studio or their corporate masters.
With respect to Mechanical Crow please ignore the fake controversy of the OP, its vapour and doesn't address the issues gamers have with the low moral quality of gaming journalism.
Joe has had issues with video game journalism in the past as well.
I think that this casts as negative a light onto the indie game scene as it does onto video game journalism. We see time and time again that independent game developers are egotistical donkey caves who can't handle any criticism of their product. Things like Earth year 2066 show us what a pack of prima doñas these developers can be. This Zoe Quinn person is just using what's between her legs to suppress opinions against her own, just like some developers in steam use their steam community and copywriter claims to suppress negative reviews.
I consider game journalism to be no different than any other form of journalism. However I am pretty sick of game journalists remind what a terrible person I am for being white, male, middle class and cis. But that's not unique to game journalism.
Wow what a massive ramble, anyway, what I'm saying is that Zoe Quinn is no different it seems to the devs of earth year 2066 or air control
Edited by AgeOfEgos---even if you are not directing such language to the person in question---let's refrain from using that--thanks.
Ryan
Zoe is a side note, the straw the broke the camels back.
The censorship, the conflicts of interest and unethical behaviour and insane double standards is what the issue is, not feminism, she is just a gakky human being and they are trying to make it about her and not the corrupt bs and incestuous relationships and nepotism.
The evidence is so heavily against the "journalists" that they will use any scapegoat, and it doesn't take much to get feminists to tune out facts and go for blood, even though Zoe admitted to rape which is normally their number 1 hate. Just goes to show its only sexist when men do it.
All of this just shows the media manipulation, the failings of modern feminism (or misandry as it seems) and the wilful ignorance and insanity of the social justice warriors.
Orlanth wrote: ...the games journalism clique should tell us what is being released on PC/XBox/PS4/Wii etc next month and give us an honest unsponsored review of it..
Well they won't, because gaming journalism isn't.
I see this, but in reality what you are witnessing is a just a clique of dishonest reviewers and fake journalists in the pocket of developers.
a lot of people are wising up to that and going to indie reviewers, people like Angry Joe. The games industry has tried to screen off the indies but word is spreading and many indies have a rep and savvy gamers will not trust a review unless it is OKayed by their preferred genre indies. Savvier developers and those not in with the shenanigans are giving indie reviewers more interview time. Two years ago Agngry Joe was stonewalled at the shows, now he gets one on one interview time with top developers. This is because gamers are sick of the BS and if they cant trust the gaming journalists they go to the gaming journalists, because in the internet age there will always be someone out there who wont play the corporate agenda and wont shut up about not playing the corporate agenda.
Gaming journalism always is, because we can switch who we listen to. This is why this whole issue is just noise. Savvy gamers don't care how much mudslinging there is between the 'gaming journalists' in the pay of the corporations, because they are no longer gaming journalists, they are as in-house and soiled of reputation as White Dwarf. People who know gaming go elsewhere for actual gaming info news and this Zoey and the whiners making the videos simply to do not matter, and havent done so for a long time.
Mechanical Crow wrote: the failings of modern feminism (or misandry as it seems) and the wilful ignorance and insanity of the social justice warriors.
You're rushing ahead here. Feminism has not been involved until Zoe Quinn instrumentalized it. Zoe Quinn did not get the hate for being a woman - she caused all of it by faking a "raid" on her and false claimed having been harassed. She then went straight to the town square, jumped on an orange box and shouted "MISOGNY! MISOGNY!". That's the disgusting part of the entire story. News outlets immediately jumped on the misogny bandwagon because it's a story that sells well.
That's the second sad part: so many big gaming journalism sites reacted in an extremely sexist way - positive sexism. They immediately went full-protective mode and victimized Zoe Quinn just because she's a woman. That's sexism as well. It's what she wanted but it's still highly sexist. Only at this point did her gender start to play a role.
Zoe Quinn is NOT a feminist and she, in no way, represents modern feminism. She represents a sad woman who sleeps with guys in order to get media coverup and who willingly sacrifices the credibility of other fellow female developers on the altar of publicity by playing the sexism-card. That's not feminism, that's sexism.
You forgot about Yahtzee who ignored that and just called the game crappy.
Memory might have failed me...but I was sure that it was The Escapist that gave DA2 a 10/10 with a review that was full of mistakes and features that were announced but not implemented in the game. Was it another site?
No I believe that was the Escapist (but I think they do a 5 point scale). Their words in fact were;
Bottom Line: A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.
Lets all take a moment and laugh at that Then watch the video and laugh some more. "They improved literally every game mechanic." Hahahahahaha.
I don't think Yahtzee or Jim Sterling for that matter are Escapist employees. They just contracted to exclusively release their content on the Escapist website. I always figured the Escapist will publish anything if it'll get them money. They don't care what it is
You forgot about Yahtzee who ignored that and just called the game crappy.
Memory might have failed me...but I was sure that it was The Escapist that gave DA2 a 10/10 with a review that was full of mistakes and features that were announced but not implemented in the game. Was it another site?
They gave it 5/5. but Yahtzee punched it in the nads.
Bottom Line: A pinnacle of role-playing games with well-designed mechanics and excellent story-telling, Dragon Age II is what videogames are meant to be.
Lets all take a moment and laugh at that Then watch the video and laugh some more. "They improved literally every game mechanic." Hahahahahaha.
I don't think Yahtzee or Jim Sterling for that matter are Escapist employees. They just contracted to exclusively release their content on the Escapist website. I always figured the Escapist will publish anything if it'll get them money. They don't care what it is
i wonder if the entire review was just meant to be sarcastic?
I would think they'd cope to it if it was sarcasm, as that review did significant damage to their reputation (go the Wikipedia quick and look up all the awards they were getting up to 2011).
Ouze wrote: I really enjoyed Dragon Age 2, even with the somewhat dumbed down mechanics.
DA2 was a mediocre game. It was received extremely negatively because of being the successor to DA:Origins which was an outstanding game. It was a mediocre game, but a terrible successor. Still, calling it the "pinnacle of RPG" etc. was just...well...it paid well, I hope
DA2 was a mediocre game. It was received extremely negatively because of being the successor to DA:Origins which was an outstanding game. It was a mediocre game, but a terrible successor. Still, calling it the "pinnacle of RPG" etc. was just...well...it paid well, I hope
I really hope DA3 doesn't suck, but considering the quality curve of the ME series I'm not holding on to much hope.
I really hope DA3 doesn't suck, but considering the quality curve of the ME series I'm not holding on to much hope.
ME3 was an improvement for me over ME2. Not the perfect improvement, but a much improved improvement Yeah the story was still bad, but at least ME3 had a story (as opposed to Side Quests the Game). I'm waiting for reviews, but yes my faith is weak. Even after it releases, it would require me to redownload Origin, which I will happily do when they give me back my ME3, which I still can't play because Origin is a piece of trash!
ME3 was an improvement for me over ME2. Not the perfect improvement, but a much improved improvement I'm waiting for reviews, but yes my faith is weak. Even after it releases, it would require me to redownload Origin, which I will happily do when they give me back my ME3, which I still can't play because Origin is a piece of trash!
Preach it brother. I still can't access, or even repurchase, any of my DLC for DA:O and EA's customer support told me "It is a known issue we do not intend to fix.". That alone has me waffling on whether or not I'll even buy the damn game.
I have a friend whose also been having trouble. He logged in one day and his Battlefield 4 was gone. He called customer support who restored his Battlefield 4 but then his ME3 was gone! And when he got his ME3 back his Titan Fall disappeared.
Honestly, the bright side is that my dream, my one dream, that EA's servers will implode and suck their entire offices into the abyss, might actually happen
Ouze wrote: I really enjoyed Dragon Age 2, even with the somewhat dumbed down mechanics.
DA2 was a mediocre game. It was received extremely negatively because of being the successor to DA:Origins which was an outstanding game. It was a mediocre game, but a terrible successor. Still, calling it the "pinnacle of RPG" etc. was just...well...it paid well, I hope
I liked DA2 over DAO. The reason for this is that I liked the party composition and characters significantly better in DA2. I think in this sort of AI, party based game, having likeable teammates is one of the most important things, and I think DAO failed that test pretty bad. Perhaps I just picked poorly, but I would up with Aleistair and Morrigan bickering incessantly, which was just annoying, and Leliana's godawful accent.
In DA2 I had much more likable characters, in my opinion. Merill, Aveline, Varric, all a million times better and it made up for the repetitive scenery and backstabbing-from-any-direction.
I'm aware that most people like DAO better. Metacritic has DAO at 86, and DA2 at 79 - so either 7 points separates outstanding from mediocre, or maybe you're being unduly harsh on a good, but not great, game.
Mechanical Crow wrote: Edited by AgeOfEgos---even if you are not directing such language to the person in question---let's refrain from using that--thanks.
Ryan
Do you guys have what I wrote? I can re phrase it. I honestly don't even remember what you guys deleted, just in case I had a decent point in there.
Mechanical Crow wrote: the failings of modern feminism (or misandry as it seems) and the wilful ignorance and insanity of the social justice warriors.
You're rushing ahead here. Feminism has not been involved until Zoe Quinn instrumentalized it. Zoe Quinn did not get the hate for being a woman - she caused all of it by faking a "raid" on her and false claimed having been harassed. She then went straight to the town square, jumped on an orange box and shouted "MISOGNY! MISOGNY!". That's the disgusting part of the entire story. News outlets immediately jumped on the misogny bandwagon because it's a story that sells well.
That's the second sad part: so many big gaming journalism sites reacted in an extremely sexist way - positive sexism. They immediately went full-protective mode and victimized Zoe Quinn just because she's a woman. That's sexism as well. It's what she wanted but it's still highly sexist. Only at this point did her gender start to play a role.
Zoe Quinn is NOT a feminist and she, in no way, represents modern feminism. She represents a sad woman who sleeps with guys in order to get media coverup and who willingly sacrifices the credibility of other fellow female developers on the altar of publicity by playing the sexism-card. That's not feminism, that's sexism.
I mean more so the reaction to this, like the instant reaction that all this is an attack on her and that we are all being "Evil racist white supremacist misogynistic trolls that fill the male dominated gamer community" and just all the reaction from the journalists/insiders/Reddit mods involved. Its like they are trying to turn it into an attack on her, which I have no doubt will be the eventuality.
+ Her paetreon is paying her $2000 a month (up $700 from before this broke) with many of the people involved funding it. Its so messed up. Im sure Kotaku will just claim to be a critic based blog despite their boss having a masters in journalism.
LordofHats wrote: I have a friend whose also been having trouble. He logged in one day and his Battlefield 4 was gone. He called customer support who restored his Battlefield 4 but then his ME3 was gone! And when he got his ME3 back his Titan Fall disappeared.
That sort of nonsense is the only reason I haven't bought Titanfall yet, despite the fact that it is exactly the sort of game I love.
ME3 was an improvement for me over ME2. Not the perfect improvement, but a much improved improvement I'm waiting for reviews, but yes my faith is weak. Even after it releases, it would require me to redownload Origin, which I will happily do when they give me back my ME3, which I still can't play because Origin is a piece of trash!
Preach it brother. I still can't access, or even repurchase, any of my DLC for DA:O and EA's customer support told me "It is a known issue we do not intend to fix.". That alone has me waffling on whether or not I'll even buy the damn game.
Thankfully Witcher 3 is quickly approaching.
Whaaaa?
You can't access your DA:O DLC on origins?
Makes me glad I got DA:O Ultimate Ed. on Steam. Though it did inexplicably take an entire YEAR for me to get the DLC working...
I liked DA2 over DAO. The reason for this is that I liked the party composition and characters significantly better in DA2. I think in this sort of AI, party based game, having likeable teammates is one of the most important things, and I think DAO failed that test pretty bad. Perhaps I just picked poorly, but I would up with Aleistair and Morrigan bickering incessantly, which was just annoying, and Leliana's godawful accent.
fething Alistair. The only reason he wasn't the most annoying character was the fact that Leliana existed.
Morrigan was pretty cool, though that's largely because Claudia Black's voice is distilled sex.
And Shale was awesome. Shame I can't ever experience that awesome again due to EA being useless.
Morrigan was basically the Brian/Lisa Simpson of dragon age, felt like a character that the developers invented to shove their anti-religion views in the players face, and made her cool, and always right and sexy. All the religious characters they tried to make parodies of themselves. Zevran and Isabella were the same in their respective games. Annoying forced messages.
Breaking news. Former Guardian journalist calls gamers attacking SJWs Terrorists. Apparently a sony executives plane had to land due to bomb threat and its being blamed on the same people going after Zoe Quinn. What the actual hell?
And then there is this:
Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka. If you wish to share any such image you need to host it elsewhere and link to it.
Reds8n
Automatically Appended Next Post: That's right, if you disagree with or question Anita Saarkeesian or Zoe Quinn, you are a terrorist
Oh god. More politically correct lunatics with an agenda to push. I wonder how long it'll be until we hear from Jack Thompson on how video games turn us into terrorists.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Oh god. More politically correct lunatics with an agenda to push. I wonder how long it'll be until we hear from Jack Thompson on how video games turn us into terrorists.
Thought he already did that. Both Jack and Anita seem to think if we do it video games we'll do it real life. Although I seriously question Anitas Hitman example of her killing strippers, because so far she is the only one doing it, and brutally no less.
I think the point of all these is question what you read, challenge stupidity and be vigilant, its so easy to just fall into apathy or wilful ignorance.
Noone who is to be taken seriously takes Anita seriously
Any theory that suggests a relation between video games / movies and actual real life behavior has been debunked so hard even their mother would not recognize their working hypothesis anymore!
Sigvatr wrote: Noone who is to be taken seriously takes Anita seriously
Any theory that suggests a relation between video games / movies and actual real life behavior has been debunked so hard even their mother would not recognize their working hypothesis anymore!
Plus Anita has been proven to be a fraud
NSFW
Anita and Zoe should be villians to any feminist, but the movement (group, community or whatever) has been abused and overwhelmed by misandrists, sexists and racists
Seriously? "I don't play many games, I've had to learn a lot about them" said 4 years ago means that she is categorically not a gamer and never will be so all her videos are fraud? I know it's a really zany and out there proposition, but maybe upon learning about video games, someone might go "Oh, these are fun. I'm going to play more of them" Everyone has to start somewhere, Because by the argument he's using, you're not a gamer either, and you "hate" video games as well.
(Also, how the feth does he get "I hate video games" from the words "I'm not a gamer, and I had to learn a lot about games for this")
Final point, because the guy in the video annoyed me; calling people that disagree with you "fething retards" and "beta fether" is not how to win an argument, and nor is (and this point is probably worse) him going "look at these guys and their stupid opinions", having a screenshot of what they wrote in the background, and then making up what they said! half the people he mocked said things completely different to what he said they said! he managed to take "I'm not a fan of her tropes video thing, I am a female gamer myself" and turn it into "I'm not a fan of video games, I am a female gamer (cue snorts of derision because he pretended they were stupid)".
Goliath you should ignore his cursing and listen to the points he makes, yes he could have made it more PC, but the points are she deceived her viewers, her footage is not her own, IMHO that damages her credibility, but also the point of knights on white horses coming to her rescue (hint ) and 160000$ for a few youtube videos is a good deal imo
Ahtman wrote: Are people still passing around the idiotic idea that Anita somehow deceived people? What a friendly reminder of how hate can warp in peoples mind.
Ahtman wrote: Are people still passing around the idiotic idea that Anita somehow deceived people? What a friendly reminder of how hate can warp in peoples mind.
Right, so she didn't lift large clips of let's play footage from other channels without acknowledging the sources?
She didn't cherry pick the hate mail from abusive trolls whilst iignoring the genuine, honest and polite criticism; and misrepresented the hate mail trolling as being representative of ALL her critics?
She didn't take games out of context to justify her attacks on the designers?
She didn't deliberately attract and provoke the abuse of trolls by posting links to her "work" on 4chan, of all places; then launched a media campaign and went on the speaking circuit to complain about how she's being victimised?
She didn't fail to account for how she spent all the $150,000 or so that she received throughKickstarter?
She didn't make a video criticising the use of gender signifiers in video games (jewellery makeup etc) whilst WEARING gender signifiers - lots of jewellery and heavy makeup - in all of her videos?
There IS sexism in video games but Anita Sarkesian is not the right person, the right spokeswoman for feminism on this issue. She's too divisive, dishonest and has transparently greedy motives.
Some of your criticisms are irrelevant to your argument and therefore rather than being supportive give the impression of a degree of misplaced criticism.
Ahtman wrote: Are people still passing around the idiotic idea that Anita somehow deceived people? What a friendly reminder of how hate can warp in peoples mind.
So...you're saying that she didn't?
She's just desperately looking for attention to get money and self-confirmation. Anita in a nutshell.
Kilkrazy wrote: Some of your criticisms are irrelevant to your argument and therefore rather than being supportive give the impression of a degree of misplaced criticism.
No they're not... I was giving examples of when (IMO) Anita has been deceitful.
There's an old video of when she attended w businessbseminar and gave a testimonial of how the course had "helped her new business". Her business is is offence seeking, the professional grievance industry. There's money to be made in the speaking circuit, media appearances and getting hired as a "Consultant" on games like Mirrors Edge 2 .
Anita isn't a representative for feminism just because she claims it being that way. Actual feminists are mostly unknown to the public as their work is boring and drawn-out yet they actually achieve stuff.
What Anita and other people like those femen girls are slacktivists. Shouting out loudly for all to be heard, but actually doing nothing of worth.
Ahtman wrote: Are people still passing around the idiotic idea that Anita somehow deceived people? What a friendly reminder of how hate can warp in peoples mind.
So...you're saying that she didn't?
She's just desperately looking for attention to get money and self-confirmation. Anita in a nutshell.
People vastly over-inflating her Kickstarter beyond what was ever asked for or needed is not her deceiving people. Anita taking these peoples money is no more than they deserve for supporting her in the first place. She's delivering slowly, but she's delivering.
Ahtman wrote: Are people still passing around the idiotic idea that Anita somehow deceived people? What a friendly reminder of how hate can warp in peoples mind.
So...you're saying that she didn't?
She's just desperately looking for attention to get money and self-confirmation. Anita in a nutshell.
People vastly over-inflating her Kickstarter beyond what was ever asked for or needed is not her deceiving people.
Sigvatr wrote: Any theory that suggests a relation between video games / movies and actual real life behavior has been debunked so hard even their mother would not recognize their working hypothesis anymore!
I disagree here. Of course watching Scream is not going to turn you into a serial killer, but I think there is a reason why it is not allowed to broadcast movies like Birth of a nation. Well, I guess it is not allowed, I am not sure about the U.S. laws on that kind of stuff.
People are not going to blindly emulate what actors do in the movie, but certainly movies can carry a message that may be internalized to some degree and lead to people acting on it later. That is the whole damn point of propaganda, by the way.
Goliath wrote: Final point, because the guy in the video annoyed me; calling people that disagree with you "fething retards" and "beta fether" is not how to win an argument
Beta? Is that not some PUA/MRA/Whatever the hell language there?
Goliath wrote: Final point, because the guy in the video annoyed me; calling people that disagree with you "fething retards" and "beta fether" is not how to win an argument
Beta? Is that not some PUA/MRA/Whatever the hell language there?
It's Red Pill terminology; it's the implication that because they don't act all macho, or act in a vaguely feminine manner they are categorically worse than those (I.e. The Red Pillers) who act in an alpha manner (working out, fething around, acting as if you're the centre of the universe, acting/talking about women as if they're some subservient race that *need* to be controlled and only exist for the sexual service of men). If he's using the term in the way that it's normally used (which based on how he acted in the rest of the video, I will assume is the case) he's implying that they don't deserve to have a relationship,because they are inferior, and if they *do* end up in a relationship it would be perfectly fine for him to make every attempt to steal their partner out from under them (apart from if they were gay, because that's totally gay and disgusting bro).
It's the worst kind of frat house, LADS LADS LADS kind of sexism.
Sigvatr wrote: Any theory that suggests a relation between video games / movies and actual real life behavior has been debunked so hard even their mother would not recognize their working hypothesis anymore!
I disagree here. Of course watching Scream is not going to turn you into a serial killer, but I think there is a reason why it is not allowed to broadcast movies like Birth of a nation. Well, I guess it is not allowed, I am not sure about the U.S. laws on that kind of stuff.
People are not going to blindly emulate what actors do in the movie, but certainly movies can carry a message that may be internalized to some degree and lead to people acting on it later. That is the whole damn point of propaganda, by the way.
Sigvatr wrote: Well, science disagrees so I go with science
I think you are misunderstanding what science tells you. But claiming science sure is a pretty efficient way to get respectability.
I am pretty sure actual science tries to understand how propaganda and persuasion works rather than dismissing it as something unreal and claiming that people only ever get their own personal idea out of nowhere with no influence from the outside world.
Sigvatr wrote: Well, science disagrees so I go with science
I think you are misunderstanding what science tells you. But claiming science sure is a pretty efficient way to get respectability.
I work and act...mostly...on facts. So far, there has not been a single study showing an actual influece or direct correlation between video games (or other media) and an actual change of behavior. This certainly does not mean that there is no correlation - it just means that it has not been proven yet. Yet it's the more logical approach to the question at hand. Going by a motion because "you think that it's right" isn't an approach I appreciate.
Do note that this isn't supposed to be meant offensive or anything. It's just a different viewpoint.
A lot of media "works" because it validates ideas people already hold. Where they got those ideas is another thing too of course.
There is some evidence that different people have basic differences in their attitudes to novelty, risk, change, and so on -- these could be genetic or social in origin (or a mixture). There is cognitive bias, which inclines people to look for media that validates their ideas.
Sigvatr wrote: So far, there has not been a single study showing an actual influece or direct correlation between video games (or other media) and an actual change of behavior.
Oh. Except for advertisement, for instance, which effectiveness has been tested thoroughly because of the huge economic interest behind it.
Sigvatr wrote: This certainly does not mean that there is no correlation - it just means that it has not been proven yet.
Denying that people can be influenced by some media they are subjected to is just like denying that China exist. Yes, with enough bad faith, you can deny it. But that is not going to make anyone else stop to take it for granted.
I do not even understand your vision, actually. Do you think no discussion, no possible exchange of ideas could ever make you change your mind, or are you arguing that putting the very same discussion in a movie or a book or a video game would somehow not make you change your mind because then it would be from a media?
Advertisement is different because it works short-term rather than long-term for most cases.
What I talk about is a long-term change in attitude / behavior. If you can point me to any scientific evidence that such a thing exists with video games, I'd highly appreciate it. You believing in it...because isn't very convincing.
Sigvatr wrote: If you can point me to any scientific evidence that such a thing exists with video games, I'd highly appreciate it.
I cannot. However, I am pretty sure I can find tons of studies of the influence of stuff like, say, rock and roll, or the romantic movement, or even movies like Rambo on the public of their time. Of course, such studies will focus both on how those were influenced by their time, and how they influenced it back, because the two phenomenon are intricately linked. Do you believe that video game are somehow an exception here? I mean, a cutscene is basically nothing but a very short movie.
I shouldn't care about a potentially poisonous influence on the video game industry?
What? This Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian? I'm not really sure how they are poisoning it when it's already pretty toxic. I used to think this particular issue was important to, you'll get over it.
Go and play some fun games.
I've just discovered the joys of Shovel Knight. That's a happy Kickstarter tale.
Ahtman wrote: Are people still passing around the idiotic idea that Anita somehow deceived people? What a friendly reminder of how hate can warp in peoples mind.
If there is anything "Saddam Hussein has WMDS" has proven, it's that if you lie often enough people believe it.
Yeah, that's just a polite "none of your business", any more than asking a Walmart executive how they spent the profits on a bag of rice. And that's assuming you bought the rice. Since you obviously didn't, you are owed nothing, despite how entitled you feel.
I can't imagine what business you guys think you can walk into and demand an accounting of their costs and profits. If she asked for x dollars, and got x dollars + y dollars, and decided to spend y dollars on cocaine and prostitutes... so what? She's well within her rights to pocket the profit however she sees fit.
Sigvatr wrote: If you can point me to any scientific evidence that such a thing exists with video games, I'd highly appreciate it.
I cannot. However, I am pretty sure I can find tons of studies of the influence of stuff like, say, rock and roll, or the romantic movement, or even movies like Rambo on the public of their time. Of course, such studies will focus both on how those were influenced by their time, and how they influenced it back, because the two phenomenon are intricately linked. Do you believe that video game are somehow an exception here? I mean, a cutscene is basically nothing but a very short movie.
Just as an interesting point. Sometimes conclusions do not need a study to prove that it is true.
I would tend to agree that article. I'm also not a fan of swapping hats between being a journalist and blogger whenever it's convenient. Anita Sarkeesian strikes me as at best dishonest and at worst annoying.
So, enlighten me, do you believe video games are different from all those other media I mentioned, or do you believe that those had no lasting influence either, or that a truncated quote is a good substitute to actual argumentation?
So, enlighten me, do you believe video games are different from all those other media I mentioned, or do you believe that those had no lasting influence either, or that a truncated quote is a good substitute to actual argumentation?
I've made my point very clear. There's no evidence for media such as books, music, TV or video games to have a direct relation to a change in character / attitude and therefore, there...isn't. If you want to think that there is because...you think so, or want to think so, that's your choice.
I - usually - believe in evidence not mere assumptions. Living in rainbow wonderland might be fun but it's...unhealthy.
There's no evidence for media such as books, music, TV or video games to have a direct relation to a change in character / attitude and therefore
So you're argument is that reading a book never changed how anyone thought about the world around them? Or that a TV show effected how someone spent their money?
Media effects people, and when people talk about those effects they're not talking "just killed 20 cops in GTA, better go run over some hookers." They're talking "man this story about the dad taking a hospital hostage to get a heart for his dying son is sad. HMO's are donkey-caves."
So you're argument is that reading a book never changed how anyone thought about the world around them? Or that a TV show effected how someone spent their money?
Sigvatr wrote: Advertisement is different because it works short-term rather than long-term for most cases.
What I talk about is a long-term change in attitude / behavior. If you can point me to any scientific evidence that such a thing exists with video games, I'd highly appreciate it. You believing in it...because isn't very convincing.
The idea that Anita could be a poisonous influence. That is why I emphasized that part.
Sigvatr wrote: I've made my point very clear. There's no evidence for media such as books, music, TV or video games to have a direct relation to a change in character / attitude and therefore, there...isn't.
Then why are you neglecting to quote and answer the part of my post that is relevant to books, music, and movies, and only just mention the part about video game? Also, why do you speak of change of character when we argue for change of opinion? That seems pretty different to me.
Ravenous D wrote: You're one to talk about inane, you've blindly defended her through this entire thread and some how ignored the towering evidence that she is a fraud.
Not that will but look up her relation to Bart Baggert, a known fraud artist that she worked for.
There is no 'towering evidence' of fraud as there is not actual fraud. If there was anything remotely like real fraud and not just some weird internet butthurt by a minorty of warped haters there would have already been a lawsuit. As it is there hasn't been anything beyond very minor characters, and that is being charitable, making youtube videos. What actually exists is a small group of warped internet posters that are letting their passion for gaming cloud all good judgement and critical thinking.
I don't know her, I don't care about her really one way or the other, but what I do care about, and what is actually poisoning to gaming community is the sheer hate generated and misogyny tossed around, not someone trying to have a dialogue about female representation in gaming. All the latter means is that gaming can be taken as a serious subject for inquiry, the former is just an embarrassment to everyone else.
The idea that Anita could be a poisonous influence. That is why I emphasized that part.
She has done conferences with EA and many others and gets paid to spread her gospel. They are even using her as a consultant on Mirrors Edge 2. So she is actively censoring games based on her views. She's been proven a fraud, I think anyone with an iota of morality can see that as her poisoning western gaming.
The fact she has admitted she is not a fan of video games, and has no interest in games that appeal to their target demographics I find it incredibly intellectually dishonest of her to come in and tell everyone that they aren't allowed to have escapism fantasy. Its like those jerk kids at the beach that cant stand other kids having fun and run around kicking over sand castles, but the second some one stands up to them, they cry and run to their parents and lie through their teeth.
Ravenous D wrote: You're one to talk about inane, you've blindly defended her through this entire thread and some how ignored the towering evidence that she is a fraud.
Not that will but look up her relation to Bart Baggert, a known fraud artist that she worked for.
There is no 'towering evidence' of fraud as there is not actual fraud. If there was anything remotely like real fraud and not just some weird internet butthurt by a minorty of warped haters there would have already been a lawsuit. As it is there hasn't been anything beyond very minor characters, and that is being charitable, making youtube videos. What actually exists is a small group of warped internet posters that are letting their passion for gaming cloud all good judgement and critical thinking.
I don't know her, I don't care about her really one way or the other, but what I do care about, and what is actually poisoning to gaming community is the sheer hate generated and misogyny tossed around, not someone trying to have a dialogue about female representation in gaming. All the latter means is that gaming can be taken as a serious subject for inquiry, the former is just an embarrassment to everyone else.
Speaking of warped, you don't even know the meaning of fraud, she has deceived people and is getting money. As Crow just mentioned, EA and the developers of Mirrors edge are paying her to consult on their games.
Omg... you just dropped the misogyny feminist scapegoat. You just devalued everything you said.
Ironically, after producing a video on the subject, Anita turned HERSELF into a straw feminist.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, let's keep in mind that her video series are just her opinions. She is not an academic, she does not carry out academic peer reviewed research. Her videos are just Anita pontificating on thing that p*** her off.
Gaming journalists give her opinions far too much credence.
Ahtman wrote: What actually exists is a small group of warped internet posters that are letting their passion for gaming cloud all good judgement and critical thinking.
Well, can we consider that it is just about their passion for gaming?
Oh wait, I remember the thread on Phil Fish on the video game section. Yeah, definitely could be just about gaming .
Mechanical Crow wrote: She has done conferences with EA and many others and gets paid to spread her gospel.
Yeah, okay. So she will influence video games from company that cares about what she has to say, got it. What about the poisonous part?
Oh, censorship like adding more female character that are not just Miss Male Character or Booby McBoob, that is censorship. Because we all know adding new, better stuff is all that censorship is about .
If you hate her so much why do you follow her around so intensely? All press is good press.
EA doesn't give a gak if you're watching her videos because you hate her, they just see "people are talking about this" and "people supported her kickstarter" so maybe she's on to something. I have neither the desire or time to look in to all of her views but maybe her making in roads might actually allow "legitimate" representatives a foot in.
Yahtzee of Zero Punctuation and his Mate talk about it:
you all might find it interesting. They talk about it for the first 35 minutes.
I personally don't see it that big of a deal considering how common it bloody is.
What I don't like is the hype build up for games that have only been shown in a beta. Like look at watch dogs. You know how big the hype train was for that? It was incredible how big of a hype train it was!
How good was the game? Meh. It was okay.
There are many games journalists that say yeah that happens quite often.
Do you know a few games that should get recognized but don't?
Spec Ops: The Line.
Two Brothers,
The Last Dream,
And many others. These games had no hype behind them and were only spread by advertisement after the game was released offically and only from reviews of accredited people.
Currently the current advertising strategy falls short and is quite stupid.
We have people giving games that haven't even been released getting awards for best of show and most anticipated game. For one as a game designer. Ummm why? Who cares? Those games are now going to be extreme let downs now.
This goes double for a game I think a lot of people overrate and give way too much credit.
The Last Of Us.
Okay I got this game after all the hubbalo with this, Its the greatest game ever, and every reviewer basically calling it one of the best games ever. This game changed our generation of games forever. Not really. I felt like Spec Ops: The Line did a better post-apocalyptic story and delivery.
So here I was sitting infront of the game playing it on the computer. Waiting for the great moments of the game.... They never came. They never wowed me. I just sat there in confusion. Thinking to myself. I reflected on the game, thinking of any metaphors I could find, they were obviously not intended to be taken as one. I asked one of my friends what he felt like the metaphor for the game was. I got no answer. He stood there and said. "There was none."
It was okay, but not as good as everyone made it out to be. I thought the premise was quite well, Cliched for a zombie game, and underdeveloped. The world still felt like a game to me, I never felt immersed into it. The first 5 minutes of a game are extremely crucial if you do not drag me in the first 5 minutes, I am not interested. The game had good characters, but some parts just didn't feel right to me, they delivered on strong points and then forgot alot of others. I approached as a writer and designer, saw how they developed it and was kind of disappointed at the oh so great game of the year.
Overall I didn't enjoy the game at the slightest. Then I picked up a game you would call a point and click adventure game. Call the Walking Dead. Now. Here is the funny bit, I heard all the hype for this game. Guess what? I loved it. I thought it was more steady with its plot and design, it's ideas were solid and even better executed than it was in the Last of Us. I remember saying this in a game design class. And all the game designers basically disregarded my opinion because I was a freshman.
I played the last of us, and said it wasn't the best game of my gaming life, like so many people have said. I know only like two reviewers who said. "Yeah this is not all that its meant to be. And it tries to say something, but it says something completely different to me."
To me it panders to this who zombie phenomenon, it tries to tell a story and gets lost its delivery, a very big mistake on my opinion. Now many have argued that it was meant to be like. I don't think so. The game never gave me any clues as to how or why that would happen.
I still have to say that games like the Walking dead, Even though they are not triple A titles are probably some of the best games I've ever played. Because they remembered a lot of the qualities of being a good game. They delievered something the last of us forgot, and thats unity. We are built up that these two characters are family and all that they have left. Walking dead does something brave, the main characters are not white, infact its not even drawn to our attention that is a big deal. It uses all of the minorities without even batting an eye. And that is incredibly ballsy for a studio to do. (As sad as that is).
Anyway my rant is over. I think that gaming as a whole has a lot to improve on, journalism being the no.1 thing that needs work. (That and also story writing)
Spec Ops isn't exactly a good game either, infact now that people are pointing it out more people are actually tearing into the story, namely the fact that it cheapens itself by the major incident of the game being railroaded so hard that it starts trying to make you feel bad for something you were forced to do. Ironically as more people consider it and constantly hype it up through word of mouth, people think its rather just plain rather then real good after trying for themselves, which is somewhat ironic for the point you are making.
Do you mean Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons? While pretty, it was both a short and somewhat forgettable puzzle game, the characterizations were okay and it had a few good moments but I didn't personally like it myself.
Most of the games you listed had some sort of weak underlying game (Spec ops was just a weak shooter, you won't find much praise for it's gameplay) and two sons (It's puzzles were rather simplistic, another weak underlying game), with a bit of pretentious story telling for spec ops, and a 'tug at the heart strings' plot for two sons.
Spec Ops the line didn't get recognized? God, good to know that hours upon hours of people talking endlessly about how incredible the game is everywhere I turned were just in my imagination. BTW I also got the game after all the hype and all I saw was a trashy shooter whose only claim to fame was "omg you've killed civilians, LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!" Been there, done that. Modern Warfare 2 was a better game <- and that's just damn sad.
You want to know why the game didn't get media coverage? The answer is 2k Games and Take 2 Interactive. The only game they've ever made that I saw any major media coverage for contain the names Sid Meir and Borderlands in the titles (and Bioshock I guess). These guys just don't advertise. Just because there's one conspiracy, doesn't mean everything is a conspiracy.
Do you know how much media coverage EA gave Dragon Age: Origins prior to it's release? None. They didn't even make a commercial add for it until the sales blew their minds away. The game had been out for weeks by the time the first commercial hit TV and the Net. Sometimes companies just don't advertise.
Spec Ops isn't exactly a good game either, infact now that people are pointing it out more people are actually tearing into the story, namely the fact that it cheapens itself by the major incident of the game being railroaded so hard that it starts trying to make you feel bad for something you were forced to do. Ironically as more people consider it and constantly hype it up through word of mouth, people think its rather just plain rather then real good after trying for themselves, which is somewhat ironic for the point you are making.
Do you mean Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons? While pretty, it was both a short and somewhat forgettable puzzle game, the characterizations were okay and it had a few good moments but I didn't personally like it myself.
Most of the games you listed had some sort of weak underlying game (Spec ops was just a weak shooter, you won't find much praise for it's gameplay) and two sons (It's puzzles were rather simplistic, another weak underlying game), with a bit of pretentious story telling for spec ops, and a 'tug at the heart strings' plot for two sons.
Techincally the gameplay in spec ops the line is suppose to feel like that. As a designer I apperciate it quite a bit. As it doesn't just use the whole, you killed civilains stuff over and over again. It points at you and calls you the villain. It says this is your fault. All you had to do was stop. Call of duty does not do that. Call of duty uses it for shock value. Spec Ops is not in the least bit pretentious in story telling. It treats us as adults. It tells a story, it talks about how unrealistic video games are. You just don't play spec ops the line. You live the world it sets up for you. Stop thinking of all the aclaim for it. I do that for every game I play. I get rid of any prior knowledge and just play it and base it on its own merits.
I set up examples merely because it helps with understanding.
Spec Ops the line didn't get recognized? God, good to know that hours upon hours of people talking endlessly about how incredible the game is everywhere I turned were just in my imagination. BTW I also got the game after all the hype and all I saw was a trashy shooter whose only claim to fame was "omg you've killed civilians, LOOK WHAT YOU'VE DONE!" Been there, done that. Modern Warfare 2 was a better game <- and that's just damn sad.
You want to know why the game didn't get media coverage? The answer is 2k Games and Take 2 Interactive. The only game they've ever made that I saw any major media coverage for contain the names Sid Meir and Borderlands in the titles (and Bioshock I guess). These guys just don't advertise. Just because there's one conspiracy, doesn't mean everything is a conspiracy.
It was extremely underrated because of a lot of things. One thing the primary enemy in the game is Spec Ops the line. If you come to the game thinking this is going to be a call of duty rip off. You are going to see a call of duty rip off. The game feels generic. Just listen to the converstions between soldiers. There is a big difference between effectiveness
Modern Warfare 2 never, in its life showed us the consequences of your actions. For killing those people.
As slowly the men you grew to care about slowly widdled away to nothing.
Where men who had fought battles for their country were nothing but hardened husks.
If you can't take away any metaphorical value from that game, and not just stop and think. Then you played the game wrong. Its a game that asks you to think differently.
Think of portal. Try to approach like you would halo. It doesn't really work does it? Charging in head first won't work. It asks you one thing. Think with portals.
You can't play games and expect them to play like others. This game is quite special. Its not like the greatest game of all time, but it is apart of the gaming history now, and should placed as such. IT is a deep look at the connection between player and player character, the FPS genre, and how to use mechanics as metaphor.
IF you have played to the ending of the game you will see things that you have done. By that point you should have seen the things you have done. For me, I got a flash back of me shooting a woman in the head.
I know its just a game, but what if that really happened? Would I feel remorse? Would I feel anything?
I think you should stop treating it like a video game, and think of it as a visual art. It is trying to say something, but you won't let it speak it.
And don't you ever compared Call of Duty to Spec Ops: the line. They are two completely different franchises with different premises, and completely different points. Call Of Duty is not an intense look at the human condition its about how the Russians attack the united states and all of europe. (Wait what?)
Do you know how much media coverage EA gave Dragon Age: Origins prior to it's release? None. They didn't even make a commercial add for it until the sales blew their minds away. The game had been out for weeks by the time the first commercial hit TV and the Net. Sometimes companies just don't advertise.
I don't know there wasn't much coverage on Spec Ops: the Line. All we saw was three trailers and thats it. Dragon Age: origins was announced at big game conferences. Spec Ops: The Line wasn't. It was in development for five years. It got released and not many people heard about it.
Modern Warfare 2 never, in its life showed us the consequences of your actions. For killing those people.
Killing those people, started the entire storyline of the game which include essentially WWIII. Just because the consequence isn't thrown into your face by a voice screaming "you're bad and you should feel bad" doesn't mean we didn't see the consequence. We spent the rest of the game dealing with the consequence.
Modern Warfare 2 never, in its life showed us the consequences of your actions. For killing those people.
Killing those people, started the entire storyline of the game which include essentially WWIII. Just because the consequence isn't thrown into your face by a voice screaming "you're bad and you should feel bad" doesn't mean we didn't see the consequence. We spent the rest of the game dealing with the consequence.
Yeah but the character doesn't. WE don't see the character.
I could never relate to the characters.
There was no character development.
The characters started out as badasses and stayed as badasses.
Spec Ops: The Line had the character go from a badass, to a husk.
Isn't the character murdered/executed shortly after participating in the events that are the impetus for the storyline? It seems like it would be hard to see the consequences when you are dead.
Do you know how much media coverage EA gave Dragon Age: Origins prior to it's release? None. They didn't even make a commercial add for it until the sales blew their minds away.
Isn't the character murdered/executed shortly after participating in the events that are the impetus for the storyline? It seems like it would be hard to see the consequences when you are dead.
Hey man, he's watching in heaven (he says "my bad guys" btw).
Do you know how much media coverage EA gave Dragon Age: Origins prior to it's release? None. They didn't even make a commercial add for it until the sales blew their minds away.
Well, aside from Sacred Ashes.
Sacred Ashes didn't appear until October (a month before release) and only appeared on EA's site and Youtube. Most games have a trailer available months out. EA basically announced the game in 2008. Forgot about it. Mentioned it again during E3 2009. Forgot about it again. Had a trailer made and released it in October. The Sacred Ashes trailer didn't start hitting ad venues (as in banner ads, tv, etc) until after the game released.
Isn't the character murdered/executed shortly after participating in the events that are the impetus for the storyline? It seems like it would be hard to see the consequences when you are dead.
Yeah but that is a gimmick in all Call of Duty games,
It is the same cliche they use over and over again.
Its brillaint the first time its executed, but if you use the same card over and over again. It sort of loses its shock value.
The First oh crap moment was in Call of duty 4 with nuke. modernwarfare 2 with the airport scene Modernwarfare 3 with the child scene (Oh wow, I was actually expecting an emotional reaction)
So your telling me this....
Is less emotional... Than this?
Which do you think is more realistic and more grim? The first or the second.
I would go with the first one. Because of one thing. Watch the soldiers. They are still alive, and groveling in the dirt. They are screaming HELP ME, HELP ME GOD. PLEASE HELP ME.
They are both terrible scenes. One just executes it far better.
Well lets be fare. Call of Duty and Infinity War/Treyarch rips all their missions and story lines from movies too
I had to giggle when playing Black Ops and realized they'd ripped entire scenes from The Last Castle. They were really scrapping the bottom of the barrel there.
The First oh crap moment was in Call of duty 4 with nuke.
modernwarfare 2 with the airport scene
Modernwarfare 3 with the child scene (Oh wow, I was actually expecting an emotional reaction)
Incorrect. The first oh crap moment was in Call of Duty:United Offensive, when Captain Price died to blow up the Tirpitz *salutes*
LordofHats wrote: Well lets be fare. Call of Duty and Infinity War/Treyarch rips all their missions and story lines from movies too
I had to giggle when playing Black Ops and realized they'd ripped entire scenes from The Last Castle. They were really scrapping the bottom of the barrel there.
The First oh crap moment was in Call of duty 4 with nuke.
modernwarfare 2 with the airport scene
Modernwarfare 3 with the child scene (Oh wow, I was actually expecting an emotional reaction)
Incorrect. The first oh crap moment was in Call of Duty:United Offensive, when Captain Price died to blow up the Tirpitz *salutes*
I really don't include those ones as I haven't played those ones. The old COD games were great till they became formulaic.
Also, let's keep in mind that her video series are just her opinions. She is not an academic, she does not carry out academic peer reviewed research. Her videos are just Anita pontificating on thing that p*** her off..
To be fair...isn't this exactly what gaming journalism stands for nowadays?
So here's a win, a small win, but a win regardless, Kotaku is telling all of its writers to immediately cease any donations to developers (Zoe Quinn is freaking out because she just lost her $2000 a month for Rebel Game Jam that she hasn't updated in months) and Polygon is telling its employees to be straight up with their connections to the stories they write.
Oh, censorship like adding more female character that are not just Miss Male Character or Booby McBoob, that is censorship. Because we all know adding new, better stuff is all that censorship is about .
I mean more like taking out story stuff just because it offends her, like if something messed up happens and there happens to be a woman involved, she'll go off the deep end connecting it things that aren't apparent to anyone but her.
The poisonous part is the SJW insanity, especially the sex negative stuff, and the mass stupidity when you question the reasoning and logic behind their statements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ravenous D wrote: So here's a win, a small win, but a win regardless, Kotaku is telling all of its writers to immediately cease any donations to developers (Zoe Quinn is freaking out because she just lost her $2000 a month for Rebel Game Jam that she hasn't updated in months) and Polygon is telling its employees to be straight up with their connections to the stories they write.
Zoe Quinn loses funding
Kotaku admits fault
Polygon will show transparency
I'd say Nathan Grayson and Patricia Hernandez should have had some sort of recourse but they are basically black balled to the nerd community and wont live it down for a long while, so half win.
Mechanical Crow wrote: I mean more like taking out story stuff just because it offends her, like if something messed up happens and there happens to be a woman involved, she'll go off the deep end connecting it things that aren't apparent to anyone but her.
Uh, okay?
Mechanical Crow wrote: The poisonous part is the SJW insanity, especially the sex negative stuff, and the mass stupidity when you question the reasoning and logic behind their statements.
So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]
Mechanical Crow wrote: I mean more like taking out story stuff just because it offends her, like if something messed up happens and there happens to be a woman involved, she'll go off the deep end connecting it things that aren't apparent to anyone but her.
Uh, okay?
Mechanical Crow wrote: The poisonous part is the SJW insanity, especially the sex negative stuff, and the mass stupidity when you question the reasoning and logic behind their statements.
So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]
No no, there is sex negative feminists and sex positive feminists. Positive believes in the empowerment of sex where as negative demonize it in nearly ever regard (I wish I could go into detail but its kind of well... too detailed for dakka) especially men.
Anita leans on sex negative where even saying hello or smiling can be considered harassment technically. Look up Elevator-gate with Rebecca Watson for another example of sex negative.
I am sure you refer to this very ubiquitous type of sexual empowerment:
Spoiler:
That is what you were talking about, right? How men in video games needs to be empowered by sex rather than by silly stuff like actual fighting skills or magic powers or other non-sense.
In my view sex negative feminism is nuts. Let's face it ,sex is probably THE prime drive behind humans behaviour and to declare it as wrong or god forbid rape is outright strange.
I'm all for sex positive feminism as it has a positive influence, I am yet to see anything written by a sex negative feminist that actually has a chance of being a force for something positive.
I was reading something on penetration is rape , or something like that the other day by a ""lesbian feminist"" who was spouting off about penetration being rape and I was wondering if she had considered hands being rape as well.
I never knew anita thought saying hello could be harrassment, sounds like we need to segregate men and women and possibly cover up the eyes of women so as not to engender harrassment.
I am sure you refer to this very ubiquitous type of sexual empowerment:
Spoiler:
That is what you were talking about, right? How men in video games needs to be empowered by sex rather than by silly stuff like actual fighting skills or magic powers or other non-sense.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with that picture, looks cool.
It's not too far different from a Roman gladiator. I honestly cannot say I would ever be offended looking at that.
Bullockist wrote: I never knew anita thought saying hello could be harrassment
Because there is absolutely nothing she ever said that could imply so.
That is why Mechanical Crow said: “Look up Elevator-gate with Rebecca Watson for another example of sex negative.”
Bullockist wrote: I honestly don't see anything wrong with that picture, looks cool.
There is nothing wrong with it. However, it is neither ubiquitous, nor particularly empowering, really. I have hardly ever read about men being “empowered” by sex.
Bullockist wrote: It's not too far different from a Roman gladiator.
It is. Quite a lot actually. Nothing about this outfit says “Roman”. It says “Fantasy holy warrior/knight, sexy version”.
take a step back and look at what he is wearing, how close is it to what gladiators wore? it's virtuially a remake of a Hoplomachus except he has a sword. sure it's a little sexed up but so what.
Incidentally, Anita filed for (and was approved for) 501(c) status, which is the technical way to say that Feminist Frequency is an officially registered with the IRS non tax paying charity. As part of this her financial are the business of every American tax payer who is now footing the bill for her status and she will be, henceforth, required to divulge financial records.
Her Kickstarter however pre dates this application.
Bullockist wrote: In my view sex negative feminism is nuts. Let's face it ,sex is probably THE prime drive behind humans behaviour and to declare it as wrong or god forbid rape is outright strange.
I'm all for sex positive feminism as it has a positive influence, I am yet to see anything written by a sex negative feminist that actually has a chance of being a force for something positive.
I was reading something on penetration is rape , or something like that the other day by a ""lesbian feminist"" who was spouting off about penetration being rape and I was wondering if she had considered hands being rape as well.
I never knew anita thought saying hello could be harrassment, sounds like we need to segregate men and women and possibly cover up the eyes of women so as not to engender harrassment.
I am sure you refer to this very ubiquitous type of sexual empowerment:
Spoiler:
That is what you were talking about, right? How men in video games needs to be empowered by sex rather than by silly stuff like actual fighting skills or magic powers or other non-sense.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with that picture, looks cool.
It's not too far different from a Roman gladiator. I honestly cannot say I would ever be offended looking at that.
I'm feeling very, VERY inadequate right now.... That dudes bigger than my freakin arm.
So my point was that we hardly ever see anything male sexed up like that, while we see female character sexed up all the time. Therefore that whole “sex empowers” stuff seems to be strangely more valid for women, as if it was actually rather “sex panders”.
Kojiro wrote: Incidentally, Anita filed for (and was approved for) 501(c) status, which is the technical way to say that Feminist Frequency is an officially registered with the IRS non tax paying charity. As part of this her financial are the business of every American tax payer who is now footing the bill for her status and she will be, henceforth, required to divulge financial records.
Her Kickstarter however pre dates this application.
Seriously, people that despise her are following everything about her that closely? You have a problem boys. Unless you actually donated to this Kickstarter.
Seriously, people that despise her are following everything about her that closely? You have a problem boys. Unless you actually donated to this Kickstarter.
She made the claim publicly, it's hardly that much effort to 'follow'. I posted the information only because other said that 'it was none else's business' what she did with the donated money. Legally that is simply false, by Anita's own actions which she publicly announced. But don't let that stop you trying to denigrate simple statements of fact.
So my point was that we hardly ever see anything male sexed up like that, while we see female character sexed up all the time. Therefore that whole “sex empowers” stuff seems to be strangely more valid for women, as if it was actually rather “sex panders”.
Kojiro wrote: Incidentally, Anita filed for (and was approved for) 501(c) status, which is the technical way to say that Feminist Frequency is an officially registered with the IRS non tax paying charity. As part of this her financial are the business of every American tax payer who is now footing the bill for her status and she will be, henceforth, required to divulge financial records.
Her Kickstarter however pre dates this application.
Seriously, people that despise her are following everything about her that closely? You have a problem boys. Unless you actually donated to this Kickstarter.
Right. So disagreeing a person's political views = an obsession?
Are we not permitted to disagree with Anitas views?
I could say the same thing about you. You spend lot of time here defending Anita and denigrating her critics. If you're not a backer or supporter of Anita yourself, why do you care so much? What's your problem?
I disagree with the idea that less gun restriction is better. But you know that guy who makes video about how there should be less gun laws? I do not care at all about how he uses the money that was given to him. I cannot be bothered to watch his video. (I cannot even be bothered to learn about his existence actually, but surely there must be one similar to that.) If I was more interested, I would try to debunk his arguments. But really, how he use the money that was given to him by backers that seem fairly happy with how it is used, as it matches his stated goal fine enough? Cannot give a damn.
So my point was that we hardly ever see anything male sexed up like that, while we see female character sexed up all the time. Therefore that whole “sex empowers” stuff seems to be strangely more valid for women, as if it was actually rather “sex panders”.
You might want to look into the actual philosophy behind it, rather then just insult another variant of feminism straight off.
Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.
This loops back on there not being enough women in the industry, especialy at the top. Men are terrible at designing sexualised men, hell, I still have no idea what women like. What men think of when you say sexualised men is not the same as when you ask a woman that same question. (in my experience)
Sadly, with how stuff like this keeps going down, I don't see this changing all that quickly. It's sad but true that this industry, or at least a loud portion of it, actively shuns women. I still have no idea where this comes from.
As a side note, I wish we could get a stat tracker for Anita and Zoe's twitter, where it tracks where all the hate comes from, Country wise. I'm very curious which Nation harbors the highest % of scum.
I disagree with the idea that less gun restriction is better. But you know that guy who makes video about how there should be less gun laws? I do not care at all about how he uses the money that was given to him. I cannot be bothered to watch his video. (I cannot even be bothered to learn about his existence actually, but surely there must be one similar to that.) If I was more interested, I would try to debunk his arguments. But really, how he use the money that was given to him by backers that seem fairly happy with how it is used, as it matches his stated goal fine enough? Cannot give a damn.
That's disingenuous and you know it.
Anita is not just some random obscure figure on the internet. She's influential, to the point that major games developers are hiring her as a Consultant, and has a considerable media profile, to the point that major mainstream media and "news" organisations are inviting her onto tv to rant about how the entire video game industry is riddled with misogyny.
To the ignorant mainstream media and wider public, her narrative and views shape their perception of video games. Combine her influence with that of other anti video game figures like Jack Thompson and Keith Vaz (British mp). You have a distinct external threat to the industry.
To expand on your analogy...you say you wouldn't care if an obscure person on the internet made a kickstarter for a series of videos about his views and desire for relaxed gun control...but what if that guy began to become influential? What if influential figures began listening to him, and taking his views seriously - journalists, reporters, news channels, other media organisations, even politicians? What if he was hired as an advisor or consultant by legislators and other groups with the power to make changes?
I reject your analogy, it is false. Anita is not some obscure random person on the internet, ranting into an echo chamber like your example.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.
For once, that's something on which I actually agree with you.
Case in point... the classic Lara Croft sex idol irritated me. The over inflated boobs, hotpants, doll like face.
The more realistic, and toned down 2013 Lara Croft was a vast improvement IMO.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.
Alright that's fair enough, I thought it odd that you were criticizing a movement of feminism.
Honestly wouldn't mind some extra male to female ratio though, or at least some fabulous guys.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Okay, maybe I was not clear. In the context of video games, wargaming, comics, … characters, I think the whole “sex empowerment” stuff is bs. There is a reason why it happens almost exclusively to female character, and that is not because they are more portrayed as powerful…
That does not mean I want riot grrrls to start wearing burquas. Or that we need to remove all sexy characters. But just imagine if the same proportion of male character were sexed up as female characters…
Basically, to reach a better state we would need more male sexed up characters and less females ones, up to the point were there are in comparable ratios.
Alright that's fair enough, I thought it odd that you were criticizing a movement of feminism.
Honestly wouldn't mind some extra male to female ratio though, or at least some fabulous guys.
Alot of games actually do that. Just not mainstream games.
Point and click adventure games are exclusively female protagonists.
Triple A titles you will rarely see that happen. Tomb Raider being an exception to this. Minus the who sexting up thing they did with her.
I think there was a discussion a few years ago, between me and another gamer, and I said there isn't enough difference of race or gender or sexuality in Triple A titles. As of now he completely agrees.
I think they shouldn't drag attention to that they are like that. They just are. And they act like its a normal thing. Or they make it a big deal and drag attention to it, but this only works if it is apart of the story.
I mean there are quite a few games that miss this opportunity. Where sometimes the game would be much MUCH stronger.
So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]
There's a reason for it. First of all, most gamers are male by a large margin. Secondly, that might surprise you, sexuality works different among men and women. Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.
So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]
There's a reason for it. First of all, most gamers are male by a large margin. Secondly, that might surprise you, sexuality works different among men and women. Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.
The ESA is terrible to use as a source. They identify someone else as a "gamer" if said person plays mobile games at least 1-2 times a week. If you want to use this as your "gamer" definition...feel free to do it. I don't.
Playing mobile and facebook games doesn't make you a gamer by its classic definition.
So, by “sex negative”, you mean that we will see less male character in heavily sexualized outfits and poses? Oh, too bad, there are so many currently that it will make a huge difference[/sarcasm]
There's a reason for it. First of all, most gamers are male by a large margin. Secondly, that might surprise you, sexuality works different among men and women. Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.
Sigvatr wrote: Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.
Yes and no.
To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.
Sigvatr wrote: The ESA is terrible to use as a source. They identify someone else as a "gamer" if said person plays mobile games at least 1-2 times a week. If you want to use this as your "gamer" definition...feel free to do it. I don't.
Playing mobile and facebook games doesn't make you a gamer by its classic definition.
Err. Classic Definition?
A "gamer" is someone who partakes in interactive gaming, such as (predominantly) video games or board games. The term nominally includes those who do not necessarily consider themselves to be gamers (i.e., casual gamers),[1] as well as those who spend a notable part of their leisure time playing or learning about games.
They don't consider themselves to be gamers, but...
They do spend just as many hours as a 'gamer'
They don't like to consider themselves one becauses it was a bad thing to be called a gamer for a very long time, And that stigma still exists.
The market currently shows that the average gamer or casual gamers as they are called, make up the majority of the gaming market. I.E Farmville, Ipad and Iphone games.
You can't really disclude them from the discussion. Its like not including point and click games because they don't fit your definition of a game.
In my view, I welcome them to the increasingly large network of gamers. And just categorize into what they do for leisure.
Sigvatr wrote: Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.
Yes and no.
To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.
To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.
I have SINCERE doubts about that "everybody" part.
To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.
I have SINCERE doubts about that "everybody" part.
I am not so sure. I think everyone knows the reason, the way things got here, you know, the history. That is, sex sells.
However, everyone also knows why WW2 began, why there's carnage in Ukraine, and so on. I do not think this gives the status quo any benefit.
To a lesser extent, certainly, but not much lesser. Everybody understands why things are the way they are, but that does not mean that the status quo is ideal.
I have SINCERE doubts about that "everybody" part.
I would agree. I mean there are still a bit of homphobes in gaming and the toxicity is still pretty large in terms of playing games with others.
Do note that study also includes Tablet/Phone gamers, which is an entirely different kind of gamer demographic.
/e: CURSE YOUR EDIIIIIT!
..What'd I miss?
They don't consider themselves to be gamers, but...
They do spend just as many hours as a 'gamer'
They don't like to consider themselves one becauses it was a bad thing to be called a gamer for a very long time, And that stigma still exists.
The market currently shows that the average gamer or casual gamers as they are called, make up the majority of the gaming market. I.E Farmville, Ipad and Iphone games.
You can't really disclude them from the discussion. Its like not including point and click games because they don't fit your definition of a game.
Thus why rather then not calling them gamers, I consider them another Gaming Demographic.. One that I dislike because it emphasizes painful and excessive monetization schemes to drain your wallet with 'timer based gameplay" The worst sins of gaming and as a result they feel freer to gouge out wallets with their horrific practices.
She is, really. She became more well-known after receiving a lot of abuse, but still.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: to the point that major mainstream media and "news" organisations are inviting her onto tv to rant about how the entire video game industry is riddled with misogyny.
Uh? Which one? Honestly never heard about that.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: To the ignorant mainstream media and wider public, her narrative and views shape their perception of video games.
I would bet 99% of the people that watched her videos did so because they are already interested in video games, and play them.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Combine her influence with that of other anti video game figures like Jack Thompson and Keith Vaz (British mp). You have a distinct external threat to the industry.
Except Anita is not anti-video game. She wants to change how female characters are portrayed in them, not remove them. Also, I never heard of those other two guys.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: To expand on your analogy...you say you wouldn't care if an obscure person on the internet made a kickstarter for a series of videos about his views and desire for relaxed gun control...but what if that guy began to become influential?
Then I would try to provide counter argument, rather than ad hominem and worrying about how he or she spends the money given to him voluntarily by his support even after the original goal was reached. Because those arguments and counterarguments are what matters to decide whether or not we should have more relaxed gun laws or not.
Asherian Command wrote: Point and click adventure games are exclusively female protagonists.
Except for the Monkey Island series, the Sam and Max series, Day of the Tentacle, Beneath a Steel Sky, Flight of the Amazon Queen, and… well, I guess I do not know any point and click game with only female protagonists. Broken Age has one female protagonist and one male protagonist, that is as close as it gets.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: There's a reason for it. First of all, most gamers are male by a large margin.
So, it is not about making the character empowered, but about pandering to the male audience sexual interests. Right? Because that was my point.
Sigvatr wrote: Secondly, that might surprise you, sexuality works different among men and women. Roughly broken down: men are immediately drawn by sexual representations of the opposite gender. Women simply don't work that way or, rather, to a much lesser extent.
I would not be so sure if I look at movies that are really popular among female teenagers :
Jack Thompson was the long time anti-video game lawyer that believed and fought for the idea that video games like Grand Theft Auto were murder simulators. He's fallen out of light after his "modest proposal" where he challenged the video game community to build him a game where a distraught parent went on a rampage killing people involved in the death of his son, up to and including a woman that ran a video game company whose name was eerily similar to the CEO of Take Two Interactive. If they did that, he'd donate something like 10 grand to a charity of the creator's choice.
Someone called him on his gak, made the game, and he then said he wouldn't pay because his proposal was sarcasm. So the guys at Penny Arcade donated 10k to a charity (possibly their own?) in honor of Jack Thompson.
Except for the Monkey Island series, the Sam and Max series, Day of the Tentacle, Beneath a Steel Sky, Flight of the Amazon Queen, and… well, I guess I do not know any point and click game with only female protagonists. Broken Age has one female protagonist and one male protagonist, that is as close as it gets.
I am looking specifically at games right now.
They are usually female driven.
But Point and click games are off the beaten path usually, and very few triple a games are point and click.
Jack Thompson was the long time anti-video game lawyer that believed and fought for the idea that video games like Grand Theft Auto were murder simulators. He's fallen out of light after his "modest proposal" where he challenged the video game community to build him a game where a distraught parent went on a rampage killing people involved in the death of his son, up to and including a woman that ran a video game company whose name was eerily similar to the CEO of Take Two Interactive. If they did that, he'd donate something like 10 grand to a charity of the creator's choice.
Someone called him on his gak, made the game, and he then said he wouldn't pay because his proposal was sarcasm. So the guys at Penny Arcade donated 10k to a charity (possibly their own?) in honor of Jack Thompson.
JAck Thompson is a piece of work especially his buddy.
I guess I am confused. What is wrong with Feminist Frequency? Why is there so much anger against her?
I don't understand why more people are not outraged that she is getting death and rape threats for talking about video games. Her videos seem pretty benign and show some of the issues the video game industry has with women.
Correct me if I am wrong, but can we agree that video game industry could stand to be more inclusive?
Alfndrate wrote: Jack Thompson was the long time anti-video game lawyer that believed and fought for the idea that video games like Grand Theft Auto were murder simulators. He's fallen out of light after his "modest proposal" where he challenged the video game community to build him a game where a distraught parent went on a rampage killing people involved in the death of his son, up to and including a woman that ran a video game company whose name was eerily similar to the CEO of Take Two Interactive. If they did that, he'd donate something like 10 grand to a charity of the creator's choice.
Someone called him on his gak, made the game, and he then said he wouldn't pay because his proposal was sarcasm. So the guys at Penny Arcade donated 10k to a charity (possibly their own?) in honor of Jack Thompson.
Oh God I remember this! Thank you for reminding me
AdeptSister wrote: I guess I am confused. What is wrong with Feminist Frequency? Why is there so much anger against her?
I don't understand why more people are not outraged that she is getting death and rape threats for talking about video games. Her videos seem pretty benign and show some of the issues the video game industry has with women.
Correct me if I am wrong, but can we agree that video game industry could stand to be more inclusive?
The problem is she barely talks about what's actually wrong, and instead just kind of Goldfishes;
Problems with females in the Industry:
- Developers have to fight tooth and nail to be able to make a female lead.
- Female Leads often have to be left off the front of box art.
- It is considered creepy/unnerving for female leads to have love interests "For male gamers".
Not problems with females in industry:
-"Damsel in distress"
-Peach being Kidnapped.
- "Women being seen as property of men", because "A woman as an object gets taken from the protagonist, and he rages against those who took her from him" (Pretty sure it's a legit reaction to seek revenge on thsoe who cold bloodedly kill people you don't hate. Not a good reaction, but an understandable one).
Her logic is very out there as well; she can claim that Princess Zelda is helpless and can't do anything, but I could complain that, using the same examples, it makes Link out to be a total dunce who needs to be told what to do every five seconds.
She spends 20+ Minutes on Princess Peach, but barely talks about Samus Aran or Lara Croft, two Iconic leading ladies whom are known to wreck people's poop daily.
A bit of it is just the Internet Hate Machine, though.
AdeptSister wrote: I guess I am confused. What is wrong with Feminist Frequency? Why is there so much anger against her?
I don't understand why more people are not outraged that she is getting death and rape threats for talking about video games. Her videos seem pretty benign and show some of the issues the video game industry has with women.
Correct me if I am wrong, but can we agree that video game industry could stand to be more inclusive?
The problem is she barely talks about what's actually wrong, and instead just kind of Goldfishes;
Problems with females in the Industry:
- Developers have to fight tooth and nail to be able to make a female lead.
- Female Leads often have to be left off the front of box art.
- It is considered creepy/unnerving for female leads to have love interests "For male gamers".
Not problems with females in industry:
-"Damsel in distress"
-Peach being Kidnapped.
- "Women being seen as property of men", because "A woman as an object gets taken from the protagonist, and he rages against those who took her from him" (Pretty sure it's a legit reaction to seek revenge on thsoe who cold bloodedly kill people you don't hate. Not a good reaction, but an understandable one).
Her logic is very out there as well; she can claim that Princess Zelda is helpless and can't do anything, but I could complain that, using the same examples, it makes Link out to be a total dunce who needs to be told what to do every five seconds.
She spends 20+ Minutes on Princess Peach, but barely talks about Samus Aran or Lara Croft, two Iconic leading ladies whom are known to wreck people's poop daily.
A bit of it is just the Internet Hate Machine, though.
I think who ever said it unnerves males to see a woman have love interests other than what the gamers find attractive is kind of stupid.
I mean I would fascinated if there was a game about a woman and her children. And I would think it would be the best game of all time.
I don't remember who said that, but I do know it was Remember Me's developers complaining about it; Nilin (Main Character) was supposed to have a love interest, but that was scrapped in order to convince them to allow Nilin to still exist.
AdeptSister wrote: I guess I am confused. What is wrong with Feminist Frequency? Why is there so much anger against her?
I don't understand why more people are not outraged that she is getting death and rape threats for talking about video games. Her videos seem pretty benign and show some of the issues the video game industry has with women.
Correct me if I am wrong, but can we agree that video game industry could stand to be more inclusive?
The primary issues are accusations of e-begging, she received $160,000 to produce a video series and so far she's produced 2 videos. It's not the she doesn't have a talent for observation, it's the conclusions she draws which are insane. Look no further than her "analysis" of hitman, where presumably she decided to murder strippers and flop them around a room and present that somehow as the object of the game when in reality the incentive for the player is to sneak past them. If you have to skew this stuff to make your point it starts to eat away at any credibility you may have. You could make a series deconstructing trite horsecrap in any form of media or entertainment, the problem, for a lot of us, is when you then try and make some specious connection between individuals real world actions and those they partake in while playing a video game. To anita, it's not a problem we're playing murder simulators, oh no, they just need not ever take place in a strip club or in the wild west or really anywhere because wherever or whenever you set a game, there might be hookers or strippers. Almost like those things existed before video games.
I'm reminded of the simpsons episode Itchy & Scratchy & Marge http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Itchy_%26_Scratchy_%26_Marge. In it marge simpson spearheads a campaign against itchy & scratchy because she believe it causes children to become violent because it depicts violence. There's a scene in which she's debating the owner of itchy & scratchy and he says something pretty worthwhile:
“In preparing for this debate I did a little research, and I discovered a startling thing. There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.” – Roger Meyers Jr.
“I see, fascinating.” – Kent Brockman
“And there was something called The Crusades, for instance, tremendous violence, many people killed, the darn thing went on for thirty years!” – Roger Meyers Jr.
“And this was before cartoons were invented?” – Kent Brockman
The episode is incredibly relevant which is amazing seeing as it's almost a quarter century old. The best part really is when the creative team turn to marge simpson and a show which is basically entirely about violence becomes a show about loving and caring. Bart thinks it sucks and even lisa must contend that the show has lost its edge. Anita's "consulting" might result in good things, it may also backfire if the game becomes more about indoctrination over entertainment.
It's a bit like bill O'Reilly indicting all rap music because a primary subject matter is crime. As if the people making the music didn't grow up surrounded by it. Pretending the symptom is the cause. Sex and violence sell, they're not always needed, sometimes they feel overused or forced. There are plenty of valid criticisms there to be made but it;s the heavy handed ideological slant that's pissing people off. Does she deserve the amount of hatred she received? Probably not, but in the end she has the last laugh, it has benefited her finances and career. I understand people's frustrations with the blurred editorial lines when it comes to certain gaming news/blog sites. Someone made the point that if you're reading a review of the new iphone, you generally want to learn about the features of the phone, not be demonized for wanting one and told at length of the horrible working conditions at foxconn.
I'd imagine that she should really be focusing on all media in general.
I think she doesn't have the weight/credibility to do so and is therefore targeting the gaming sphere because she can generate a lot of reaction because nobody else is doing it.
People overreacting to her is when you start proving her point for her and making her look credible by way of moronic opposition.
Just one quick food for thought: a lot of people, even on Dakka, jump to her side mainly because...she's a woman. Ignoring arguments or anything that might dim the shining light of righteousness that surrounds her because...she's a woman.
Positive sexism much.
Comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita, however, isn't fully fair as both are slightly different.
Anita purposefully stirred up hatred and presented false facts / strawmen / etc. in order to gather followers and, basically, attention.
Zoe Quinn made up a raid and proved being a terrible, unempathic person in order to get attention.
I'd say the latter is worse, as the entire thing is based on a pretty bland lie and tons of positive sexism by Zoe Quinn herself, but judgement is up to yourself.
As a very rough rule of thumb: never trust anyone claiming to speak for any big public motion who also is big in media; this goes for racism, sexism and...most -isms. People who actually do something for any given movement usually go under the radar. They let their actions speak for themselves. Slacktivism is a terrible thing we have nowadays, but what is more interesting? A long, drawn-out and boring lawsuit going on for months or even YEARS? Or a bunch of clueless college students showing their boobies in public?
"A reasonable human can disagree with Anita Sarkeesian’s arguments or not find her videos compelling. But the people feverishly looking for evidence that she’s some kind of fifth columnist sent to destroy video games are doing more damage to my favorite genres than she ever will. If you want nuanced, serious, realistic games, you should want to get rid of lazy, misogynist stereotypes. If you want games to be pulpy escapes from reality, you should want to get rid of lazy, misogynist stereotypes even more."
You know, as has often been pointed out, mysogyny is fear or hatred of women. If that word wasn't there I could essentially agree with the sentiment, there are plenty of lazy stereotypes on display. But the accusation of misogyny speaks to some ideological slant, like any game dev or movie director who has ever made a movie/game about crime that somehow involved hookers or strippers is anti-women or something, yes sometimes the depiction is lazy, yes sometimes it doesn't seem necessary to the plot at all, but there are other explanations, lack of talent or fear of breaking the mold seem like perfectly good estimations or criticisms. I can remember a good deal of the sopranos took place in a strip club, I didn't realize the creator of the sopranos was such a misogynist....
AdeptSister wrote: I guess I am confused. What is wrong with Feminist Frequency? Why is there so much anger against her?
I don't understand why more people are not outraged that she is getting death and rape threats for talking about video games. Her videos seem pretty benign and show some of the issues the video game industry has with women.
Correct me if I am wrong, but can we agree that video game industry could stand to be more inclusive?
The primary issues are accusations of e-begging, she received $160,000 to produce a video series and so far she's produced 2 videos. It's not the she doesn't have a talent for observation, it;s the conclusions she draws which are insane. Look no further than her "analysis" of hitman, where presumably she decided to murder strippers and flop them around a room and present that somehow as the object of the game when in reality the game incentives the player to sneak past them. If you have to skew this stuff to make your point it starts to eat away at any credibility you may have. You could make a series deconstructing trite horsecrap in any form of media or entertainment, the problem, for a lot of us, is when you then try and make some specious connection between individuals real world actions and those they partake in while playing a video game. To anita, it's not a problem we're playing murder simulators, oh no, they just need not ever take place in a strip club or in the wild west or really anywhere because wherever or whenever you set a game, there might be hookers or strippers.
I'm reminded of the simpsons episode Itchy & Scratchy & Marge http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Itchy_%26_Scratchy_%26_Marge. In it marge simpson spearheads a campaign against itchy & scratchy because she believe it causes children to become violent because it depicts violence. There's a scene in which she's debating the owner of itchy & scratchy and he says something pretty worthwhile:
“In preparing for this debate I did a little research, and I discovered a startling thing. There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.” – Roger Meyers Jr.
“I see, fascinating.” – Kent Brockman
“And there was something called The Crusades, for instance, tremendous violence, many people killed, the darn thing went on for thirty years!” – Roger Meyers Jr.
“And this was before cartoons were invented?” – Kent Brockman
It's a bit like bill O'Reilly indicting all rap music because a primary subject matter is crime. As if the people making the music didn't grow up surrounded by it. Pretending the symptom is the cause. Sex and violence sell, they're not always needed, sometimes they feel overused or forced. There are plenty of valid criticisms there to be made but it;s the heavy handed ideological slant that's pissing people off. Does she deserve the amount of hatred she received? Probably not, but in the end she has the last laugh, it has benefited her finances and career. I understand people's frustrations with the blurred editorial lines when it comes to certain gaming news/blog sites. Someone made the point that if you're reading a review of the new iphone, you generally want to learn about the features of the phone, not be demonized for wanting one and told at length of the horrible working conditions at foxconn.
Is this too long to have as a signature?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sigvatr wrote: Just one quick food for thought: a lot of people, even on Dakka, jump to her side mainly because...she's a woman. Ignoring arguments or anything that might dim the shining light of righteousness that surrounds her because...she's a woman.
Positive sexism much.
Comparing Zoe Quinn and Anita, however, isn't fully fair as both are slightly different.
Anita purposefully stirred up hatred and presented false facts / strawmen / etc. in order to gather followers and, basically, attention.
Zoe Quinn made up a raid and proved being a terrible, unempathic person in order to get attention.
I'd say the latter is worse, as the entire thing is based on a pretty bland lie and tons of positive sexism by Zoe Quinn herself, but judgement is up to yourself.
As a very rough rule of thumb: never trust anyone claiming to speak for any big public motion who also is big in media; this goes for racism, sexism and...most -isms. People who actually do something for any given movement usually go under the radar. They let their actions speak for themselves. Slacktivism is a terrible thing we have nowadays, but what is more interesting? A long, drawn-out and boring lawsuit going on for months or even YEARS? Or a bunch of clueless college students showing their boobies in public?
Zoe can't really be blamed, even if all of the accusations are true; she's using (What very few) assets she has to climb ranks, even if people find it reprehensible. She has a game on Steam, many other developers do not. Is it getting panned? Yes, and rightfully so, I feel. But it's there, so she succeeded on that front.
The fact that a journalist was in bed with whom he was reporting on is much, much worse in my eyes. The fact that he refuses to put any bad things about his "mattress" "in print" as it were is much worse.
Zoe Quinn made a game about depression yet she fakes an internet "raid" of a forum that mostly consists of people very likely to suffer from or being prone depression or at least social anxiet, showing a severe lack of empathy and making her a terrible person on all possible levels.
Sigvatr wrote: Zoe Quinn made a game about depression yet she fakes an internet "raid" of a forum that mostly consists of people very likely to suffer from or being prone depression or at least social anxiet, showing a severe lack of empathy and making her a terrible person on all possible levels.
She can be blamed. And she should be blamed.
For that, yes.
For sleeping her way to the top (As the video in the OP made it sound like the issue was), not at all.
I do subscribe to the idea that it was in the back of her mind, though.
Maybe not the entire reason (Especially if she's hitting on people at weddings the way the video described, she could just be VERY active), but you can't tell me it didn't pop up at least once.
1. For overhyping. 2. For terrible articles. 3. For giving COD perfect scores every single time. 4. For giving Extremely good games that take chances poor scores because they lack multiplayer or something stupid like that. 5. For their fakeness 6. For having a scale for a rating system. Seriously. Just say, I recommend this game. Games are meant to be entertaining you, if they don't entertain us, be frank about it and say. I do not recommend this game because it did not entertain me. 7. A rating system for graphics. Okay, in this day and age, a game can be made on any engine, if you judge or rate a game on its graphics engine, then get your head out of your ass. As long as the graphics do not interfere with the gameplay or hamper gameplay in anyway. 8. If you like one part of the game, captalize on it, but then go onto the details that it works here, but not here. 9. Not being cynical enough. 10. Fanboying instead of criticizing, your a major publisher for reviews, if there is something wrong with the game talk about it, captalize on it. The game industry will listen to you. 11. Be willing to listen to the critics of other websites. Currently Ign does not hold a very good standing with the rest of the reviewers of video games. From Yahtzee, To Extra Credits, to kotaku, to Rooster teeth for crying out loud. They need to reimagine themselves. 12. Not editing their work before they post.
Slarg232 wrote: IGN has been bought out by Activision/EA/Publishers.
Even if it's not true/no proof, I'm standing by that statement because no one can prove it otherwise.
I don't care who they come from, they are just poorly written articles, and the most well known reviewing website in gaming, and they are the one that sadly game designers listen to. And their main thing about all games is to be like COD
Slarg232 wrote: I personally wish all "Graphics" scales would be changed to Aesthetics, but I fear we are going off topic here.
We are talking about Video Game reviewers. I mean most are quite terrible.
Extra Credits actually talked about it. (And if you are interested in gaming news listen to them, they are in the industry and now whats up, so do I incidently as I am currently a student in it.)
Sigvatr wrote: Just one quick food for thought: a lot of people, even on Dakka, jump to her side mainly because...she's a woman. Ignoring arguments or anything that might dim the shining light of righteousness that surrounds her because...she's a woman.
...
...
Don't you think that is a bit sexist?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Anita without the blacklash would have been teaching sensitivity training workshops.
...
Then the backlashers are fething stupid as well as vile misogynist bigoted criminals. But we knew that already.
Sigvatr wrote: Just one quick food for thought: a lot of people, even on Dakka, jump to her side mainly because...she's a woman. Ignoring arguments or anything that might dim the shining light of righteousness that surrounds her because...she's a woman.
...
...
Don't you think that is a bit sexist?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crablezworth wrote: Anita without the blacklash would have been teaching sensitivity training workshops.
...
Then the backlashers are fething* stupid as well as vile misogynist bigoted criminals. But we knew that already.
Hahaha. Sorry. I completely agree with you on that.
The professional victim is an individual who takes advantage of good hearted people. This is particularly the case in the game industry. If someone’s media coverage / social media influence greatly outstrips their actual accomplishments, they might be a professional victim.
I’ve been getting death threats and online flames since the beginning. I didn’t go around complaining about it because, like most people, I know that the world is full of jerks and idiots and if they’ve heard of you, they will sometimes target you. The professional victim, by contrast, will convert trolling into media gold which just so happens to get coverage for their new game or new project.
The professional victim is purposely trying to ruffle feathers and then gain exposer for their project by the outpouring of abuse they take. But only some people are allowed to be victims. If some gruff man were to start critiquing the fashion industry, any complaints he had regarding the “harassment” he received due to the inevitable insults directed his way would be ignored.
Professional victims rely on the fact that we don’t condemn intolerance and abuse universally. Because of that, like issue #1, the culture becomes more divisive, more toxic. When people feel they haven’t gotten a fair shake or that their beliefs are being misrepresented, they get angry.
Lastly, a reminder: Trolls customize their insults just for you. They will pick what they think will upset you the most and use that. If you wear your grievances on your sleeve then it’s just that much easier."
"#3 Unaccountability
The typical stereotype of the online “troll” is that they’re some kid. But the nastiest of the trolls tend to actually be people who actually work IN THE INDUSTRY (or close to it) posting anonymously.
Sometimes they post as themselves but because they have the correct “politics” they get a pass. One of the worst trolls I’ve had to deal with was the founding editor of Kotaku. He even made a YouTube video comparing me to Hitler (it’s still up if you search for it). Imagine if the former editor in chief of Kotaku posted a video comparing a female game developer with Hitler. What do you imagine the coverage would be? What does that tell you about the attitudes of some people in “activist” media?
The fact that Twitter and YouTube still allow anonymity for their users is [A] Not surprising but [B] a major reason why we have so much gak on the Internet. People are a lot more reasonable when they are posting as “themselves”."
Go ask Total Biscuit what his email and youtube comments are like. He won't be able to tell you. He started suffering physical symptoms from handling his own mail, and has spent the last few years paying someone else to deal with all of that crap for him.
LordofHats wrote: Go ask Total Biscuit what his email and youtube comments are like. He won't be able to tell you. He started suffering physical symptoms from handling his own mail, and has spent the last few years paying someone else to deal with all of that crap for him.
And here I was thinking it was his cancer that was causing him to suffer.
LordofHats wrote: Go ask Total Biscuit what his email and youtube comments are like. He won't be able to tell you. He started suffering physical symptoms from handling his own mail, and has spent the last few years paying someone else to deal with all of that crap for him.
And here I was thinking it was his cancer that was causing him to suffer.
Different incidents (This one happened between cancer one and cancer two). He was getting so many death threats and flame mail his doctor went so far as to put him on anti-depressants cause he just couldn't handle it.
Asherian Command wrote: I remember. That total biscuit disabled youtube comments. Mostly because he doesn't really have time to deal with that gak hahaha.
No true. He disabled Youtube comments in protest against Google's implementation of the "gak" Google+ system which apparently makes managing and responding to comments and feedback a nightmare for a youtuber.
Pretty much every one of his videos explicitly spells this out, explaining why the comments are disabled, and with a link to a Reddit page where feedback and discussion of the video can be found.
LordofHats wrote: Go ask Total Biscuit what his email and youtube comments are like. He won't be able to tell you. He started suffering physical symptoms from handling his own mail, and has spent the last few years paying someone else to deal with all of that crap for him.
And here I was thinking it was his cancer that was causing him to suffer.
Different incidents (This one happened between cancer one and cancer two). He was getting so many death threats and flame mail his doctor went so far as to put him on anti-depressants cause he just couldn't handle it.
The internet is a cruel place.
Well thats fethed up. Got a link? I've never heard of that.
Well thats fethed up. Got a link? I've never heard of that.
Oh lordy... He did a video about it, but he has soooo many @_@ Think its in one of the cooptional podcasts, but there's over one hundred of them, most a few hours long, and I have no idea which one
There might be an article about it somewhere but there's so many of those too (or might be buried somewhere on his Twitter). For once, I actually want to go find the damn thing to refresh my memory but dear lord my google foo is too weak.
Asherian Command wrote: I remember. That total biscuit disabled youtube comments. Mostly because he doesn't really have time to deal with that gak hahaha.
No true. He disabled Youtube comments in protest against Google's implementation of the "gak" Google+ system which apparently makes managing and responding to comments and feedback a nightmare for a youtuber.
Pretty much every one of his videos explicitly spells this out, explaining why the comments are disabled, and with a link to a Reddit page where feedback and discussion of the video can be found.
LordofHats wrote: Go ask Total Biscuit what his email and youtube comments are like. He won't be able to tell you. He started suffering physical symptoms from handling his own mail, and has spent the last few years paying someone else to deal with all of that crap for him.
And here I was thinking it was his cancer that was causing him to suffer.
Different incidents (This one happened between cancer one and cancer two). He was getting so many death threats and flame mail his doctor went so far as to put him on anti-depressants cause he just couldn't handle it.
The internet is a cruel place.
Well thats fethed up. Got a link? I've never heard of that.
Oh I DIDN'T know that. Okay. I might join reddit just to discus the video. Because he's a very interesting fellow.
Crablezworth wrote: The primary issues are accusations of e-begging, she received $160,000 to produce a video series and so far she's produced 2 videos.
This is false.
Sigvatr wrote: Just one quick food for thought: a lot of people, even on Dakka, jump to her side mainly because...she's a woman. Ignoring arguments or anything that might dim the shining light of righteousness that surrounds her because...she's a woman.
Or maybe it is because we find the criticism very poor, and the abuse very excessive and undeserved.…
Slarg232 wrote: I agree with Jim Sterling about Anita; she's Gamings own Frankenstein Monster.
Gamers created her, and here she comes to
kill.
again!
Frankenstein monster was actually a pretty nice guy. It is the rest of society that treated him very, very poorly and unjustly. And Frankenstein himself was a real jerk in that whole story. Really.
Or maybe it is because we find the criticism very poor, and the abuse very excessive and undeserved.…
Edit: Let me rephrase that, thousands of people get attacked on the internet by the "Hate Machine" why are these ones specifically protected while many more are hated, even mocked by the same people defending others.
Sigvatr wrote: Just one quick food for thought: a lot of people, even on Dakka, jump to her side mainly because...she's a woman. Ignoring arguments or anything that might dim the shining light of righteousness that surrounds her because...she's a woman.
Or maybe it is because we find the criticism very poor, and the abuse very excessive and undeserved.…
There is plenty of well researched and balanced criticism out there, but Confirmation Bias ensures that it's ignored in favour of seizing on the abuse from the very vocal minority of Trolls and real misogynists (not imagined) in the online discussion regarding Feminist Frequency and representing those Trolls as being representative of all her critics.
Believe it or not, but disagreeing with a Feminist's views =/= misogyny.
The abuse was indeed excessive and undeserved. Nobody deserves to be subjected to death threats for exercising their right to free speech. I hope that genuine death threats are reported to the Police and investigated thoroughly. (the screen cap posted earlier that purported to show a series of threats via twitter appeared suspicious, as has been pointed out)
But such is the nature of internet trolling. Lots of prominent Youtubers are subjected to torrents of online abuse for all manner of things, yet they don't nurture and milk it like Anita has done to further an agenda. In fact, Trolling is a wider social issue that is by no means unique to Gamers. Why is it assumed that all her Trolls are actual Gamers? Prominent media figures often get troll simply because they are prominent.
Furthermore, Anita got exactly the response she desired. She posted adverts for her series on 4chan of all places, that notorious lair of online Trolls. She knew that her intellectually dishonest series would provoke a storm of negative criticism, and that a certain proportion would be abusive. Yet instead of acknowledging criticism and engaging with her legitimate critics by responding to their arguments, she blocked, banned and disabled comments on all her videos, except for when she wanted to harvest comments from Trolls, and presented those Trolls as being representative of all her critics.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Can you give an example of someone being attacked on dakka by the “hate machine”, and that I am mocking, for reference?
I wasn't specifically naming anyone on here, just in general with the defense force they've got going on. I mean Totalbiscuit had enough hate mail that he physically required anti-depressants and was asked by his doctor to avoid his mail box, but that wasn't an apparent example of "Misandry" or something at work. Infact people are fighting him for speaking out against Zoe and calling him a "Misgyonistic piece of trash who doesn't know what it's like to get hate" (Which is ironic)
Then you had people like Jack Thompson, who also got plenty of death threats and hate mail, and was publically criticized as well, but apparently he wasn't defended in great droves either.
I went up to 5 minutes, realized it was not about criticizing Anita's work at all anymore and decided to go back to listening to Brel.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Lots of prominent Youtubers are subjected to torrents of online abuse for all manner of things, yet they don't nurture and milk it like Anita has done to further an agenda.
Care to provide an example?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: In fact, Trolling is a wider social issue that is by no means unique to Gamers. Why is it assumed that all her Trolls are actual Gamers?
Who cares about that? Maybe you do, but I certainly do not. I do not give a damn.
I mean, you sound like if you have made “gamer” a bit part of your identity, to the point where you take criticism on any gamer personally or something. I do play video game quite a bit, but I honestly would never take personally random comments on how some gamers are very bad persons…
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She posted adverts for her series on 4chan of all places, that notorious lair of online Trolls.
I have to ask the obvious question: how do you know it was her, on a website not really known for being too much about verifying the identity of posters?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She knew that her intellectually dishonest series would provoke a storm of negative criticism, and that a certain proportion would be abusive. Yet instead of acknowledging criticism and engaging with her legitimate critics by responding to their arguments, she blocked, banned and disabled comments on all her videos, except for when she wanted to harvest comments from Trolls, and presented those Trolls as being representative of all her critics.
I do not think her series is intellectually dishonest. I do not think YouTube comments have ever been in any way a good platform to “engage with one's legitimate critics”, and I am going to go as far as consider that someone suggesting it is might not be very familiar with the internet, or not be completely intellectually honest himself.
\Well, then, I can assure you the entirety of the hitman franchise is 100% about dragging skimpily dressed dead women around rooms and placing them in objects.
Oh and uhhh strip clubs and brothels are no place for hookers/strippers. We need more positive role models for women, in brothels and strip clubs....
ZebioLizard2 wrote: I mean Totalbiscuit had enough hate mail that he physically required anti-depressants and was asked by his doctor to avoid his mail box, but that wasn't an apparent example of "Misandry" or something at work.
I recently read stuff about that on the G+ feed of some girl that made some tutorial for the game Strife. I had quite a lot of troubles understand what that was about, seemed quite convoluted. The articles were written for people that were already familiar with the issue, I guess.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Then you had people like Jack Thompson, who also got plenty of death threats and hate mail, and was publically criticized as well, but apparently he wasn't defended in great droves either.
I went up to 5 minutes, realized it was not about criticizing Anita's work at all anymore and decided to go back to listening to Brel.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Lots of prominent Youtubers are subjected to torrents of online abuse for all manner of things, yet they don't nurture and milk it like Anita has done to further an agenda.
Care to provide an example?
Totalbiscuit.
[
quote]quote=Shadow Captain Edithae 611694 7157466 5d42f8b6fbac0029cbdc070da02a0759.jpg]In fact, Trolling is a wider social issue that is by no means unique to Gamers. Why is it assumed that all her Trolls are actual Gamers?
Who cares about that? Maybe you do, but I certainly do not. I do not give a damn.
You do this a lot. Simply hand waive opposing arguments and view points away because "I don't care about that", instead of actually bothering to refute the argument. Maybe I should start doing that with your arguments.
I mean, you sound like if you have made “gamer” a bit part of your identity, to the point where you take criticism on any gamer personally or something.
Criticism is not the issue here.
Dishonest criticism made by people with a politically correct agenda out to generate media hype and make money for themselves in the professional victimhood industry by exploiting an issue is.
Jack Thompson did it.
Anita is doing it.
I do play video game quite a bit, but I honestly would never take personally random comments on how some gamers are very bad persons…
Again, you're being disingenuous. Anita is not some random person on the internet. She is influential. Developers hire as a consultant. She gets invited onto TV news channels for interviews.
Did you just not bother to read what I said about this, the last time you played the "Why do you even care?" card? And you still have not responded to my counter question. Why do YOU care so much, that you are spending so much time here defending Anita and denigrating her critics?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She posted adverts for her series on 4chan of all places, that notorious lair of online Trolls.
I have to ask the obvious question: how do you know it was her, on a website not really known for being too much about verifying the identity of posters?
Well who the hell do you think it was?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She knew that her intellectually dishonest series would provoke a storm of negative criticism, and that a certain proportion would be abusive. Yet instead of acknowledging criticism and engaging with her legitimate critics by responding to their arguments, she blocked, banned and disabled comments on all her videos, except for when she wanted to harvest comments from Trolls, and presented those Trolls as being representative of all her critics.
I do not think her series is intellectually dishonest.
I do. Lets move on, lest we go round another circle.
I do not think YouTube comments have ever been in any way a good platform to “engage with one's legitimate critics”,
Why not? Plenty of Youtubers do it just fine. Ignore and block users who are abusive. Reply and debate with people who give polite and civil criticism. Others pick a number of comments, and address them in turn in a subsequent new video. And others (Totalbiscuit) give a link to another forum (Reddit) where he does engage in debate.
And you're ignoring the fact that she DID in fact engage via the comments...with her TROLLS. She even re-enabled comments for a short while on one specific video, so she could harvest some cherry picked comments by Trolls to bolster her "I'm a victim!" narrative and present to the mainstream media, and at her TED-Talks presentations; whilst ignoring all comments by people who were NOT abusive.
Anita does not debate. She does not care about opposing view points.
She lectures. She cares only about her own viewpoints, and does not react to criticism, unless of course its abusive and she can exploit it.
If you disagree with her, you're misogynist.
and I am going to go as far as consider that someone suggesting it is might not be very familiar with the internet, or not be completely intellectually honest himself.
And I'd respond that you're totally ignorant of how this is not a problem for other Youtubers who do know how to deal with Trolls -ignore & block - or who direct comments and criticism to another, more suitable forum.
Dishonest criticism made by people with a politically correct agenda out to generate media hype and make money for themselves in the professional victimhood industry by exploiting an issue is.
No, really, criticism of gamers seems the issue here.
“In fact, Trolling is a wider social issue that is by no means unique to Gamers. Why is it assumed that all her Trolls are actual Gamers?”
If your problem was about her trying to make money for herself, why speak about gamers and non-gamers? It would be totally irrelevant.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Again, you're being disingenuous. Anita is not some random person on the internet. She is influential. Developers hire as a consultant. She gets invited onto TV news channels for interviews.
Still not heard on which TV show.
And I am going to reiterate. Still random comments on gamers. Made by a person of very, very relative notoriety, which does not change anything.
For another example about the fact I do not care about those kind of comments, see here. I could not care about that either, and could not understand why people would care.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And you still have not responded to my counter question. Why do YOU care so much, that you are spending so much time here defending Anita and denigrating her critics?
Because Strife servers are down for maintenance :(.
William Douglas. Or Joffrey Adams. Or John Doe. Or whoever the hell, really.
Do you believe that impersonating someone on the internet is hard? Or that nobody would want to do it “for the lulz”? Are you naive or what?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Why not? Plenty of Youtubers do it just fine. Ignore and block users who are abusive. Reply and debate with people who give polite and civil criticism.
Not possible on a flux of comment of that scale. Like, at all. Really, totally, ridiculously unrealistic. Unless you have a whole crew paid to do the job as a full-time occupation.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And you're ignoring the fact that she DID in fact engage via the comments...with her TROLLS. She even re-enabled comments for a short while on one specific video, so she could harvest some cherry picked comments by Trolls to bolster her "I'm a victim!" narrative and present to the mainstream media, and at her TED-Talks presentations; whilst ignoring all comments by people who were NOT abusive.
Well, the trolls are very real, and the abuse is quite bad. You obviously would like them hid away with only the less abusive criticism displayed, but seriously, why should it not be talked about?
Rather, if you are an extremely abusive misogynist and therefore disagree with her in a very abusive manner, she is going to show the world about you. Cannot see any problem here.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And I'd respond that you're totally ignorant of how this is not a problem for other Youtubers who do know how to deal with Trolls -ignore & block - or who direct comments and criticism to another, more suitable forum.
No other YouTuber I know have nearly the same amount of hate directed toward them. Really. Not even close. You know, for fun, I went to check some video from that Totalbiscuit you spoke about.
9 947 likes, 112 unlikes.
Not even close man .
I am sure you refer to this very ubiquitous type of sexual empowerment:
Spoiler:
That is what you were talking about, right? How men in video games needs to be empowered by sex rather than by silly stuff like actual fighting skills or magic powers or other non-sense.
More like not being ashamed for liking sex or feeling good about your body/flaunting it. Where as sex negative feminist make women feel like they are garbage for giving into desires of the flesh.
Its the reason we get silly memes like this:
Please don't attach non wargaming images to Dakka.
If you wish to share any such images you need to link to an offsite host.
reds8n
Slarg232 wrote: I agree with Jim Sterling about Anita; she's Gamings own Frankenstein Monster.
Gamers created her, and here she comes to
kill.
again!
Frankenstein monster was actually a pretty nice guy. It is the rest of society that treated him very, very poorly and unjustly. And Frankenstein himself was a real jerk in that whole story. Really.
I wouldn't call someone who says "You WILL create me a wife or I will kill everyone you love so you live just as lonely as I do" a nice guy.
Dishonest criticism made by people with a politically correct agenda out to generate media hype and make money for themselves in the professional victimhood industry by exploiting an issue is.
No, really, criticism of gamers seems the issue here.
“In fact, Trolling is a wider social issue that is by no means unique to Gamers. Why is it assumed that all her Trolls are actual Gamers?”
If your problem was about her trying to make money for herself, why speak about gamers and non-gamers? It would be totally irrelevant.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Again, you're being disingenuous. Anita is not some random person on the internet. She is influential. Developers hire as a consultant. She gets invited onto TV news channels for interviews.
Still not heard on which TV show.
And I am going to reiterate. Still random comments on gamers. Made by a person of very, very relative notoriety, which does not change anything.
For another example about the fact I do not care about those kind of comments, see here. I could not care about that either, and could not understand why people would care.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And you still have not responded to my counter question. Why do YOU care so much, that you are spending so much time here defending Anita and denigrating her critics?
Because Strife servers are down for maintenance :(.
William Douglas. Or Joffrey Adams. Or John Doe. Or whoever the hell, really.
Do you believe that impersonating someone on the internet is hard? Or that nobody would want to do it “for the lulz”? Are you naive or what?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Why not? Plenty of Youtubers do it just fine. Ignore and block users who are abusive. Reply and debate with people who give polite and civil criticism.
Not possible on a flux of comment of that scale. Like, at all. Really, totally, ridiculously unrealistic. Unless you have a whole crew paid to do the job as a full-time occupation.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And you're ignoring the fact that she DID in fact engage via the comments...with her TROLLS. She even re-enabled comments for a short while on one specific video, so she could harvest some cherry picked comments by Trolls to bolster her "I'm a victim!" narrative and present to the mainstream media, and at her TED-Talks presentations; whilst ignoring all comments by people who were NOT abusive.
Well, the trolls are very real, and the abuse is quite bad. You obviously would like them hid away with only the less abusive criticism displayed, but seriously, why should it not be talked about?
Rather, if you are an extremely abusive misogynist and therefore disagree with her in a very abusive manner, she is going to show the world about you. Cannot see any problem here.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: And I'd respond that you're totally ignorant of how this is not a problem for other Youtubers who do know how to deal with Trolls -ignore & block - or who direct comments and criticism to another, more suitable forum.
No other YouTuber I know have nearly the same amount of hate directed toward them. Really. Not even close. You know, for fun, I went to check some video from that Totalbiscuit you spoke about.
9 947 likes, 112 unlikes.
Not even close man .
Okay, at this point, is it even debating? He's pointed out several cases and backed it up with evidence and you're callously waiving it away. Seriously. As much as we supposedly hate her fo rno reason, you;re defending her for no reason. Blind loyalty is just as bad as blind hate
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Then you had people like Jack Thompson, who also got plenty of death threats and hate mail, and was publically criticized as well, but apparently he wasn't defended in great droves either.
Alfndrate wrote: Jack Thompson was the long time anti-video game lawyer that believed and fought for the idea that video games like Grand Theft Auto were murder simulators. He's fallen out of light after his "modest proposal" where he challenged the video game community to build him a game where a distraught parent went on a rampage killing people involved in the death of his son, up to and including a woman that ran a video game company whose name was eerily similar to the CEO of Take Two Interactive. If they did that, he'd donate something like 10 grand to a charity of the creator's choice.
Someone called him on his gak, made the game, and he then said he wouldn't pay because his proposal was sarcasm. So the guys at Penny Arcade donated 10k to a charity (possibly their own?) in honor of Jack Thompson.
I think the real question is, is if people are this stupid is it illegal to make a couple of accounts, pose as a woman in them, and try to reap the benefits of the Feminists Charitably?
That's what I wanna know. Wouldn't be my fault if they didn't do any research on it....
Slarg232 wrote: I think the real question is, is if people are this stupid is it illegal to make a couple of accounts, pose as a woman in them, and try to reap the benefits of the Feminists Charitably?
That's what I wanna know. Wouldn't be my fault if they didn't do any research on it....
What, that it should not be assumed to be misoginy, because it happened to a guy too?
If people are shown to do x, where x is "be hateful pieces of gak", wouldn't it stand to reason that you assume the cause is the same for all cases, until proven otherwise?
What, that it should not be assumed to be misoginy, because it happened to a guy too?
If people are shown to do x, where x is "be hateful pieces of gak", wouldn't it stand to reason that you assume the cause is the same for all cases, until proven otherwise?
Mechanical Crow wrote: More like not being ashamed for liking sex or feeling good about your body/flaunting it.
Where on earth did you get that Anita was being ashamed of liking sex or feeling good about her body?
Slarg232 wrote: I wouldn't call someone who says "You WILL create me a wife or I will kill everyone you love so you live just as lonely as I do" a nice guy.
Context, man, context.
Kojiro wrote: Here, try this one. It's probably the best response I've seen (don't forget part 2).
What, that it should not be assumed to be misoginy, because it happened to a guy too?
If people are shown to do x, where x is "be hateful pieces of gak", wouldn't it stand to reason that you assume the cause is the same for all cases, until proven otherwise?
Is x done equally to both genders?
The nature of the internet being anonymous enough that this is allowed to even become an issue to begin with, I can't honestly say I have any way of telling without making assumptions. Could be some of the vicious hate is coming from men and women, directed at men and women, with men or women pretending to be one or the other on either side.
I know the internet is a disgusting hatebox though. I just don't feel like I can make further assumptions about it without being intellectually dishonest.
"When men get trolled it's called getting trolled. When women get trolled they call it 'getting sexually harrassed'." - Brad Wardell, Founder and CEO of Stardock Entertainment (quote found here).
It's a simplification to be sure, but it's interesting how it relates to the Zoe thing.
I guess the point of the article sailed right over your head.
What, that it should not be assumed to be misogyny, because it happened to a guy too?
Yes (and no).
For it to be misogyny, there has to be actual hatred of women on the part of the Troll. As I said before, to judge that, you need to know what is going on inside the Troll's head (and thats delving into Thought Crime btw). So effectively you cannot know for sure...unless you can show that the Troll in question has a track record of abusing women consistently, both online and in person / Real Life. No doubt some genuinely are misogynists, in that they do actually hate all women. But how can you know that they genuinely believe what they say, without knowing them personally?
Case in point. A man gets into an argument with a girl. She calls him a d***head. He calls her a b***h. You cannot infer from that, that they hate all men/women, and are abusing each other because they're a man/woman.
Trolling is about upsetting people. The object is simply to upset you, by saying whatever they think you are most sensitive to. For a self described Feminist who campaigns very publicly and noisily against misogyny and frequently complains of how shes being victimised, its pretty clear what buttons the Trolls [think they] need to press in order to upset her.
(In fact, I think shes actually delighted when she gets abused - it makes good media fodder and confirms her ideological beliefs).
What, that it should not be assumed to be misoginy, because it happened to a guy too?
If people are shown to do x, where x is "be hateful pieces of gak", wouldn't it stand to reason that you assume the cause is the same for all cases, until proven otherwise?
Is x done equally to both genders?
I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...
Slarg232 wrote: I wouldn't call someone who says "You WILL create me a wife or I will kill everyone you love so you live just as lonely as I do" a nice guy.
Context, man, context.
Not to be TFG, but in the other thread you were refusing to accept my arguments of context, and now you're using it in support of your argument? Dude. Seriously?
Slarg232 wrote: I wouldn't call someone who says "You WILL create me a wife or I will kill everyone you love so you live just as lonely as I do" a nice guy.
Context, man, context.
Not to be TFG, but in the other thread you were refusing to accept my arguments of context, and now you're using it in support of your argument? Dude. Seriously?
For some stuff, context is relevant. For other stuff, it is not.
I find your context lacking.
Anyway, I feel that at this point it's become more of a "weather the storm" kind of situation until we can actually get a clear of the real discussions going on here.
I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...
So yeah, men are no strangers to online abuse.
I never asserted that men are never harassed. I know you are, and I certainly don't like it.
My question was to which extent men are harassed compared to women.
I am seeing some pretty strong trends to the latter recieving more harassment, to which I ask, why could this be?
I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...
So yeah, men are no strangers to online abuse.
I never asserted that men are never harassed. I know you are, and I certainly don't like it.
My question was to which extent men are harassed compared to women.
I am seeing some pretty strong trends to the latter recieving more harassment, to which I ask, why could this be?
considering the fact that I always start online games as a "female" and pretend to be female, explicitly because I know it means people will be:
A: more helpful
b: more patient
c: generally nicer to me.
im not sure the whole "women by default get treated worse online" is a real thing, as opposed to women just recieveing abuse online, and thinking they get it worse/more then men when they really do not.
I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...
So yeah, men are no strangers to online abuse.
I never asserted that men are never harassed. I know you are, and I certainly don't like it.
My question was to which extent men are harassed compared to women.
I am seeing some pretty strong trends to the latter recieving more harassment, to which I ask, why could this be?
I would argue that men get harassed more on a daily basis on the internet, the difference is, they get harassed by the same gender, men harassing men just doesn't garner shitstorms of this size. I've received plenty of death threats just for being good at certain games.
I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...
So yeah, men are no strangers to online abuse.
I never asserted that men are never harassed. I know you are, and I certainly don't like it.
My question was to which extent men are harassed compared to women.
I am seeing some pretty strong trends to the latter recieving more harassment, to which I ask, why could this be?
considering the fact that I always start online games as a "female" and pretend to be female, explicitly because I know it means people will be:
A: more helpful
b: more patient
c: generally nicer to me.
im not sure the whole "women by default get treated worse online" is a real thing, as opposed to women just recieveing abuse online, and thinking they get it worse/more then men when they really do not.
...This may be anecdotal, but my experiences are your polar opposites. Let's just say there's a reason I came to DakkaDakka as 'BrotherHaraldus', and it is not a coincidence that I usually stay off the voice chat in games.
Given money etc. by pretending to be a girl does seem worrying too. It's not like harassment, but stop a moment and think 'Why are these guys doing you favours?'
Slarg232 wrote: Am I the only guy/gal/frog in existence that will help out other players as much as possible and typically runs into people who do the same?
Probably. I do it in EVE to help out noobs, if for nothing else than the shock and awe it generates, but I've never heard of anyone else doing it.
Granted, that comes with the territory of playing a game that rewards sociopathy.
Slarg232 wrote: Am I the only guy/gal/frog in existence that will help out other players as much as possible and typically runs into people who do the same?
I subconsciously assume people on the internet are guys until proven otherwise in most games (Which is bad, I know, but it's my experience and I am bad) but it does not really matter to me. I try treat both genders equally, even if I am sure I subconsciously fail on some level.
I think everyone does, but on the same level, most people I run into when starting a game typically give me.... crap gear, but better than what I have. Random people, too.
And I'm running around with names like Slarg the Slaughterer or Brother Meynard or similar.
Ashiraya wrote: ...This may be anecdotal, but my experiences are your polar opposites. Let's just say there's a reason I came to DakkaDakka as 'BrotherHaraldus', and it is not a coincidence that I usually stay off the voice chat in games.
I played a game of Strife with voice chat, there was a girl (I guess), and nobody made any comment on it. Well, granted, she already knew two other members of the party, and I was one of the two other outsiders.
Also asked one of them afterward if he thought I was a man or a woman, and apparently people only mistook my gender on the phone, not on voice chat .
Ashiraya wrote: Given money etc. by pretending to be a girl does seem worrying too. It's not like harassment, but stop a moment and think 'Why are these guys doing you favours?'
I would guess the same reason that make most men be more friendly with a beautiful girl than with Average Joe/Jane even if they have no intention to actually date her, I think. It is stupid, but it comes so naturally…
Slarg232 wrote: I think everyone does, but on the same level, most people I run into when starting a game typically give me.... crap gear, but better than what I have. Random people, too.
I had one guy on Path of Exile giving me his very good gear because he had just died in a hardcore league and would not care at all about playing in Normal. That was really cool of him. I also help sometime people asking for TP to gateways on chat.
For some stuff, context is relevant. For other stuff, it is not.
Definition: Context - the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed.
Context is always relevant. Without it, nothing makes sense, specifically English with its double meanings and spellings (there, their, they're).
Slarg232 wrote: Am I the only guy/gal/frog in existence that will help out other players as much as possible and typically runs into people who do the same?
Most of the time I try to take a lead role in CS:GO if I see the team isn't showing an cohesion. This is often met with a feth you or otherwise I'm just ignored. However, when people listen we always win the pubs.
I used to be a lot friendlier in pubs, after 13 years of online gaming (give or take) I've become somewhat more rude and cynical to the general pub player, though I do still often offer advice only to be met with scum.
I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...
So yeah, men are no strangers to online abuse.
I never asserted that men are never harassed. I know you are, and I certainly don't like it.
My question was to which extent men are harassed compared to women.
I am seeing some pretty strong trends to the latter recieving more harassment, to which I ask, why could this be?
The symptoms of wider social issues and inter-sex tension that are by no means unique to Video Gaming?
Partly a backlash against what they perceive to be a hostile Feminist assault on their values, interests and "sphere of influence"?
For instance, you gotta admit that Anita Sarkeesian conducts herself in a belligerent and adversarial way when it comes to male gamers - describing gaming as "an old boys club", a "patriarchy", calling Gamers in general "Misogynist"? She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions. People perceive her as dishonest and motivated by greed. Oh, and shes also a hypocrite. Didn't she once promote a "Murder fantasy story" written by one of her fans/supporters, with the subject of the story being a male Executive of a video game Developer?
When divisive and belligerent figures like Sarkeesian are perceived to be representative of Feminism in general, a hostile backlash is inevitable.
I've been abused in all manner of ways online . I've been called Gay and (ironically) homophobic , a pussy, racist, sexist, a Tory toff (again ironic, considering I'm on minimum wage), extremist, a right wing nazi, a left wing communist when I challenge right wing Nazis...
So yeah, men are no strangers to online abuse.
I never asserted that men are never harassed. I know you are, and I certainly don't like it.
My question was to which extent men are harassed compared to women.
I am seeing some pretty strong trends to the latter recieving more harassment, to which I ask, why could this be?
The symptoms of wider social issues and inter-sex tension that are by no means unique to Video Gaming?
Partly a backlash against what they perceive to be a hostile Feminist assault on their values, interests and "sphere of influence"?
For instance, you gotta admit that Anita Sarkeesian conducts herself in a belligerent and adversarial way when it comes to male gamers - describing gaming as "an old boys club", a "patriarchy", calling Gamers in general "Misogynist"? She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions. People perceive her as dishonest and motivated by greed. Oh, and shes also a hypocrite. Didn't she once promote a "Murder fantasy story" written by one of her fans/supporters, with the subject of the story being a male Executive of a video game Developer?
When divisive and belligerent figures like Sarkeesian are perceived to be representative of Feminism in general, a hostile backlash is inevitable.
Does Anita Sarkeesian's actions explain the result I too often see when a woman enters voice chat?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The symptoms of wider social issues and inter-sex tension that are by no means unique to Video Gaming?
That it is not unique to video gaming does not mean it is not relevant here. You can argue that focus should be shifted to the wider issues, but it's not like internet dickery is a lie and sexist remarks are just illusions. And as long as that is the case, protests will continue to be at least somewhat relevant.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The symptoms of wider social issues and inter-sex tension that are by no means unique to Video Gaming?
Well this is about the video game industry and the people who play games so it shouldn't be that hard to understand why this about the manifestation of those things within video gaming.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Partly a backlash against what they perceive to be a hostile Feminist assault on their values, interests and "sphere of influence"?
Part of the problem is the assumption of hostility, which isn't on there, but imagined by some. Taking a critical look at something isn't the same as attacking it or being hostile.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: For instance, you gotta admit that Anita Sarkeesian conducts herself in a belligerent and adversarial way when it comes to male gamers - describing gaming as "an old boys club", a "patriarchy"
I don't think people will 'admit' to something that is either patently false or, at the least, is very subjective. I've seen the videos from her and the those arguing against her and the only ones I would describer as hostile, toxic, or flat out full of gak are the the detractors. I don't agree with her videos, but I also didn't agree with everything my professors told me either but I didn't label them as a fraud, belligerent, or adversarial. I don't care if people disagree with her points the problem is that to often it isn't about her points but about her.
No, she presents herself as a feminist commentator. Even in the videos she says one can still enjoy games, says she has enjoyed games, and also still be critical of elements of the games and industry. She is also not even close to the first person to be critical of the game industry and how it treats/views/presents females.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.
She wants to try and make people think about how women are potrayed in the industry and in games. Not seeing the horror in it.
And that perception is still just as much gak now as it was before. The dishonesty seems to be coming from those willingly believing falsheoods.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Oh, and shes also a hypocrite. Didn't she once promote a "Murder fantasy story" written by one of her fans/supporters, with the subject of the story being a male Executive of a video game Developer?
If you are going to throw around an accusation like that the least you can do is also back it up, otherwise it just seems like "internet lie I believed".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When divisive and belligerent figures like Sarkeesian are perceived to be representative of Feminism in general, a hostile backlash is inevitable.
The divisive, belligerent figures I am seeing, even in this thread, are not coming from Quinn or Sarkeesian, but the people willing to believe lies and manufacture motivations that are doing the most harm to gaming, not some random critic.
If you are going to throw around an accusation like that the least you can do is also back it up, otherwise it just seems like "internet lie I believed".
If you are going to throw around an accusation like that the least you can do is also back it up, otherwise it just seems like "internet lie I believed".
Indeed, but it still doesn't seem to qualify showing hypocrisy, unless you are unfamiliar with her or just have such a hate on you can see things that aren't there.
Indeed, but it still doesn't seem to qualify showing hypocrisy, unless you are unfamiliar with her or just have such a hate on you can see things that aren't there.
I can still enjoy a genuinely funny story. That punchline is brilliant
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.
I'd didn't see it before, but now it is SO OBVIOUS! She is clearly an evil genius!
I can see how it works: first; make a bunch of youtube videos, then angry gronyards start slinging abuse, then rainbow unicorns ride in from the west to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries, trampling the gronyards with magic hoves, then gaming executives respond by growing wings and clucking like chickens. This in turn allows a legion of robo-feminists to remove their flesh faces, seize control of the development companies, and turn them over to Sarkeesian, allowing her to make an endless stream of point-and-click adventures with female protagonists. Ruining Gaming Forever!
Pure Evil Genius! How could we have not seen it before!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.
I'd didn't see it before, but now it is SO OBVIOUS! She is clearly an evil genius!
I can see how it works: first; make a bunch of youtube videos, then angry gronyards start slinging abuse, then rainbow unicorns ride in from the west to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries, trampling the gronyards with magic hoves, then gaming executives respond by growing wings and clucking like chickens. This in turn allows a legion of robo-feminists to remove their flesh faces, seize control of the development companies, and turn them over to Sarkeesian, allowing her to make an endless stream of point-and-click adventures with female protagonists. Ruining Gaming Forever!
Pure Evil Genius! How could we have not seen it before!
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.
I'd didn't see it before, but now it is SO OBVIOUS! She is clearly an evil genius!
I can see how it works: first; make a bunch of youtube videos, then angry gronyards start slinging abuse, then rainbow unicorns ride in from the west to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries, trampling the gronyards with magic hoves, then gaming executives respond by growing wings and clucking like chickens. This in turn allows a legion of robo-feminists to remove their flesh faces, seize control of the development companies, and turn them over to Sarkeesian, allowing her to make an endless stream of point-and-click adventures with female protagonists. Ruining Gaming Forever!
Pure Evil Genius! How could we have not seen it before!
. . .
I think the point is, look at Sark and then look at Dodger;
Sark is absolutely coming at this from the angle of "This is a boys only club that I want in on". We don't even know if she genuinely wants in on it due to past interviews stating she hates video games. This is all assuming you take what she's saying at 100% face value, and not some con as others have put forth.
Dodger on the other hand is inclusive, having a channel that talks about video games as "Our favorite medium", has a video podcast with TB and others, and has half a million subscribers.
Does Anita Sarkeesian's actions explain the result I too often see when a woman enters voice chat?
The way I see it, almost the ideal response to that situation would be.
Female Gamer A: "Hi"
Random B: *Random stream of Abuse directed towards A* (Because, John Gabriel's G.I.F.T.)
Random C + D: "Dude, not cool"
Random E: *Continues killing dudes, because they don't have a mike.
>Random B: *Shuts up, because he's not got an audience*
>> Good time is had by all, except Random B, who quits in a huff because he's got the lowest score, as noone is helping him.
As opposed to the current situation, I imagine would be more like.
Female Gamer A: "Hi"
Random B: *Random stream of Abuse* (Because, John Gabriel's G.I.F.T.)
Random C: "Hah, awesome! Rock on, Random B! You da'man."
Random D: Awkward silence.
Random E: *Continues killing dudes, because they don't have a mike.*
>Random B+C: Continues to prove the G.I.F.T.
>> Female gamer A quits, never to play again.
Although, you have probably have the rarer situations, that probably aren't helpful in the grand scheme of things
Female Gamer A: "Hi"
Random B: *Random stream of Abuse* (Because, John Gabriel's G.I.F.T.)
'White Knight': *Assorted White Knight-ey things, that seem kinda creepy.* Followed by a Howard Walowitz pick-up line.
Random D: *Launches tirade at 'White Knight' because he's now feeling directly offended.
Random E: *Silently quits game, because weird.*
> Game degenerates with Random B and 'White Knight' arguing and trolling is fun.
----------
How off base am I?
It seems to me, that a lot of the dissonance could be that some male gamers feel insulted and become defensive, as they feel they are assumed to be Type B. However, its Type C in the second example that needs to be convinced and, I think its the Type D's that are probably the best resource to do it.
However, it might need to be done a little more delicately otherwise, there's a risk of turning Type D's into Cs if they feel threatened...
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She presents herself as an outsider, condemning video gaming as a "male sphere of influence" and makes it her self confessed mission to break it down and change it to suit her agenda and preconceptions.
I'd didn't see it before, but now it is SO OBVIOUS! She is clearly an evil genius!
I can see how it works: first; make a bunch of youtube videos, then angry gronyards start slinging abuse, then rainbow unicorns ride in from the west to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries, trampling the gronyards with magic hoves, then gaming executives respond by growing wings and clucking like chickens. This in turn allows a legion of robo-feminists to remove their flesh faces, seize control of the development companies, and turn them over to Sarkeesian, allowing her to make an endless stream of point-and-click adventures with female protagonists. Ruining Gaming Forever!
Pure Evil Genius! How could we have not seen it before!
. . .
I think the point is, look at Sark and then look at Dodger;
Sark is absolutely coming at this from the angle of "This is a boys only club that I want in on". We don't even know if she genuinely wants in on it due to past interviews stating she hates video games. This is all assuming you take what she's saying at 100% face value, and not some con as others have put forth.
Dodger on the other hand is inclusive, having a channel that talks about video games as "Our favorite medium", has a video podcast with TB and others, and has half a million subscribers.
Draw your own conclusions from that.
Oh yeah, Dodger's awesome. She's done more for female gamers than Anita Sarkeesian ever will.
Slarg232 wrote: We don't even know if she genuinely wants in on it due to past interviews stating she hates video games.
People seem to keep on saying this as if it's been widely documented and there's mountains of proof, but the only evidence for that I've seen to back it up is a single video taken four years ago where she says 'I'm not a gamer, I had to learn a lot about games for this'.
Is there any other evidence to support the constant statements that she hates games? Because saying you've not played games before, but have learnt a lot about them four years ago doesn't preclude her having liked what she learnt and decided to become a gamer. it just means that four years ago she didn't play video games. I know plenty of people who have gone from not playing games to ridiculously heavily invested into games and gaming culture in less than a year, let alone four, so I really don't understand why that one piece of video is supposed to invalidate the possibility of her ever being a gamer.
Slarg232 wrote: We don't even know if she genuinely wants in on it due to past interviews stating she hates video games.
People seem to keep on saying this as if it's been widely documented and there's mountains of proof, but the only evidence for that I've seen to back it up is a single video taken four years ago where she says 'I'm not a gamer, I had to learn a lot about games for this'.
Is there any other evidence to support the constant statements that she hates games? Because saying you've not played games before, but have learnt a lot about them four years ago doesn't preclude her having liked what she learnt and decided to become a gamer. it just means that four years ago she didn't play video games. I know plenty of people who have gone from not playing games to ridiculously heavily invested into games and gaming culture in less than a year, let alone four, so I really don't understand why that one piece of video is supposed to invalidate the possibility of her ever being a gamer.
Watch the whole video, she tells the media she has a passion for games and has had a passion for gamers her entire life, and constantly uses that one picture. So saying she isn't a fan of gaming, and not a fan of any shoot em up games then follows that up her "too many dicks on the dance floor" video about the male domination in gaming.
So, if it happens then she's (admittedly) horrrible.
If it doesn't, she was going to do it, but heard it had been leaked and decided not to.
edit: also, this is somehow going to bring an end to the term "gamer"? I'm fairly sure that everyone that doesn't care about this whole thing [read: pretty much everyone] will still refer to themselves and others as gamers.
Also also, do the people making these videos purposefully try to make their voices as infuriating to listen to as possible? I just couldn't watch that, the guy's voice was painful to listen to.
Alternatively, they go through with it anyway, as fanatic supporters won't check facts, it causes an uproar among sensible people, and she racks in the moolah/publicity.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Or neither, because it's unlikely to actually be true.
Oh, I know that. It's ridiculous to the point of a Tom Clancy novel. My point was that for whoever made that post, there will be only two outcomes: she goes through with it (unlikely), or she doesn't go through with it (and therefore must have heard about it and cancelled, but she definitely was going to for realz guys)
Goliath wrote: It's ridiculous to the point of a Tom Clancy novel.
Nah. See, if Tom Clancy had come up with it, that post would include a description of the brass knuckles being used, where they came from, who has famously used them, and their technical specs
Goliath wrote: It's ridiculous to the point of a Tom Clancy novel.
Nah. See, if Tom Clancy had come up with it, that post would include a description of the brass knuckles being used, where they came from, who has famously used them, and their technical specs
The whole thing seems a storm in a rather small teacup to me. I've never even heard of Zoe Quinn until this stuff about her sleeping around to get in with some game reviewers. It seems pretty small potatoes. She sounds like a desperate attention seeker if she gives out sexual favours on that basis.
Anita Sarkessian seems to have turned her feminism professional, nothing gets said about her partners pile of sexy cosplay pics on his blogs/sites even if he does co-produce her videos. So it seems rather selective and therefore cynical. If people want to give her money through a kickstarter to help her buy a pile of computer games to play that's really their bag, you can't stop them. She describes the sexist nature of computer games, and defines the character types she will focus on, in her kickstarter advert. Clearly she's writing to a conclusion she has already decided, even if she has so little knowledge of gaming she has to buy the games in order to play for this 'research'. She's also made a huge amount of money from the kickstarter, over $150,000. I'm not sure where it all went but clearly a lot of people want to buy into what she's selling.
Just out of curiosity, I've been popping in every now and then and checking this thread out.
With all the people and personalities getting this wor ked up about games, it reminds me of the documentary, "The King of Kong".
There were people saying and doing over the top crap in the way of plotting and character assasination over a video game, coming off looking like tiny minded people whose biggest worry was getting to be lauded as the best Donkey Kong player in the world.
I think they're more focusing on how everyone blames them for things (cause you know, the cesspools of the web are the real victims here ) but some weird stuff has been happening on 4Chan /v/ the last few weeks since this started.
This campaign and its related issues have been on the sidelines this whole time, but it is very un-4chany thing for 4chan to be doing. 4chan now has a movement on it's board that actually cares about the sites image rather than reveling in its negative reputation. Very strange indeed.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: 4Chan, Reddit, Tumblr...All groups that absolutely hate each other are working together...
Kind of a Red Letter day that marks the beginning of the apocalypse.
Woah, woah woah woah.
4Chan, Reddit, AND Tumblr are all together on this?
Is it Internet Hate Machine, or are they actually focusing on the issues of how bad the industry is right now?
LordofHats wrote: I think they're more focusing on how everyone blames them for things (cause you know, the cesspools of the web are the real victims here ) but some weird stuff has been happening on 4Chan /v/ the last few weeks since this started.
This campaign and its related issues have been on the sidelines this whole time, but it is very un-4chany thing for 4chan to be doing. 4chan now has a movement on it's board that actually cares about the sites image rather than reveling in its negative reputation. Very strange indeed.
LordofHats wrote: I think they're more focusing on how everyone blames them for things (cause you know, the cesspools of the web are the real victims here ) but some weird stuff has been happening on 4Chan /v/ the last few weeks since this started.
This campaign and its related issues have been on the sidelines this whole time, but it is very un-4chany thing for 4chan to be doing. 4chan now has a movement on it's board that actually cares about the sites image rather than reveling in its negative reputation. Very strange indeed.
I am confused. How come 4chan has not yet sprouted thousand of the most vile rule34 images on Vivan James? Is that even possible?
I am confused. How come 4chan has not yet sprouted thousand of the most vile rule34 images on Vivan James? Is that even possible?
Oh they've produced a few. But just the character's basic design is so reserved and unsexified that it seems a step above their usual flavor. Add in that part of the FYC campaign ended up hacked at the hand of feminists hackivists and you have an extremely bizarre reverse of how things would normally be expected to go considering 4chan's involvement
One of the rewards for Games Jam pledges was that the donators could design a character that would be featured in the games produced by the charity event, and after /v/ donated $2000 they earned this reward. Various discussions and votes were held on /v/ to pick the character's name and appearance and produced Vivian James;
She has since been taken as a sort of mascot representing the users of /v/.
The colors of her sweater are meant to represent the Piccolo Dick meme/joke produced by /v/;
Daily Dose / Piccolo Dick refers to an animated GIF of the Dragon Ball character Piccolo anally raping Vegeta.
Images related to the gif are often not aimed at representing the GIF, but instead just contain the colors green and purple. The idea of this is to make the combination of the two colors evolve as a trigger in a person’s subconscious that results in him being reminded of the gif each time he sees those colors.
So not only did they produce a female character who is not skimply dressed, but the colors of her sweater are meant to invoke a male on male rape joke
Then watch the video and laugh some more. "They improved literally every game mechanic." Hahahahahaha.
on 4chan, of all places; then launched a media campaign and went on the speaking circuit to complain about how she's being victimised?
.
.
