Sometimes I feel it is enough to stop gaming. First is the farce that is game journalism, the idea that these are somehow not all bought out by people.
And then comes the PC master race and console wars.
And then comes in those horrible gamer gate and Anita saarkeesion debacles that just seem old and out of date already.
the righteousness and blindness of gamers that refuse to acknowledge the problems with gaming?
It just feels stupId sometimes.
Why do we get caught up in this culture war and stuff and why can't we enjoy gaming?
If you don't wan't to be a part of that "culture", then don't be.
Not one of the things that you mentioned is even remotely mainstream so you won't have to deal with that unless you actually go looking for it. So don't.
Just relax and enjoy playing games for the actual pleasure of playing.
1st point: If you dont want to deal with stupid people you don't have too. I ignore msot of "gamer culture" outside of short discussions with friends.
First is the farce that is game journalism, the idea that these are somehow not all bought out by people.
The upset is based on wanting honesty, then the journalists backlash of retardation. you can easily ignore it like 90 % of gamers did.
And then comes the PC master race and console wars.
Outside of stupid comments on youtube, there is only really a console war. And beyond that, what do you prefer? choose that one. no more major issue unless you think that it is up to you to defend sony or microsoft's honor in the field of comments.
And then comes in those horrible gamer gate and Anita saarkeesion debacles that just seem old and out of date already.
part of game journalism, they used sexism as a cover to shift the fault. also, the anita situation has little to do with gamergate, otehr then the "sexist" ideas that journalism sites wanted to push. again, see my point on the journalism part.
the righteousness and blindness of gamers that refuse to acknowledge the problems with gaming?
like what? sexism? not really an issue when you remember that not everything is designed and marketed to everyone. please share your opinion as I am curious.
Why do we get caught up in this culture war and stuff and why can't we enjoy gaming?
like I said, almost everyone ignores this stuff and has fun. everyone involved is either trying to push their agenda, or trying to stop said agenda from being pushed.
Likely. Both my wife and me are vivid gamers and we just don't care about what happens in the gaming "culture". We like good games, we play good games...and that's about it.
I keep myself unaware of most of gaming culture by:
1. not believing the hype
2. keeping myself to myself
3. use indie reviews, multiple sourcing or buy blind
4. being easy to please within my genre, and not buying outside it much
5. generally buying older games, which are cheaper patched and fan reviewed.
Most of the "controversies" completely pass me by until I read them ion Dakka.
Just play what you enjoy. As others have stated, if you don't want to be a part of 'Gaming Culture' don't be. I used to buy 'Games ™' and swear by their reviews, now I just buy what appeals to me. I have no opinion on 'GamerGate' either. And I am certainly ambivalent about Anita whatserface..
Just don't let yourself get worked up about it all I guess.
Orlanth wrote: I keep myself unaware of most of gaming culture by:
1. not believing the hype
2. keeping myself to myself
4. being easy to please within my genre, and not buying outside it much
5. generally buying older games, which are cheaper patched and fan reviewed.
Most of the "controversies" completely pass me by until I read them ion Dakka.
This is basically the same as me. Most of the stuff you listed seems like stuff that's generated by journalists to create interest in whatever they write ( and for me anita sarkesian is the pinnacle of this). I generally read user reviews on steam ( part of why i like steam) and stay away from reviews from the big boys - I just wish I did this earlier as i own a lot of stinkers.
Well, there's gaming culture, and there's Gamer Culture.
One is the idea that relaxing with a game, be it a party game with friends, a eurogame with family, Warmachine at the FLGS, or Call of Duty online with a dozen strangers, is a good way to spend time. It's as harmless and ephemeral as any other culture that surrounds large and varied hobbies.
The other... well... there's something rotten in the old State of Denmark. Gamer Culture as it exists in its entitled, whiny, self absorbed state is simply awful.
Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.
Orlanth wrote: I keep myself unaware of most of gaming culture by:
1. not believing the hype
2. keeping myself to myself
3. use indie reviews, multiple sourcing or buy blind
4. being easy to please within my genre, and not buying outside it much
5. generally buying older games, which are cheaper patched and fan reviewed.
Most of the "controversies" completely pass me by until I read them ion Dakka.
I'd like to add to 3&5.
3. I wait for the lets play videos to come out for any game I'm interested in. Why listen to others opinions when you can see what you're getting.
5. find a good flash game site, it's like playing the old atari and SNES games.
IMO:
There really is no gaming culture as a whole:
: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
: a particular society that has its own beliefs, ways of life, art, etc.
: a way of thinking, behaving, or working that exists in a place or organization (such as a business)
No 2 games share any of the above, forget the culture and Play what you enjoy.
Never buy a brand new game and stick to whatever console/pc you like. I'm a happy PlayStation player, I don't care that 'I could build the same system on a pc for cheaper' I'm happy with my console. Plus I like the big television.
Polonius wrote: Well, there's gaming culture, and there's Gamer Culture.
One is the idea that relaxing with a game, be it a party game with friends, a eurogame with family, Warmachine at the FLGS, or Call of Duty online with a dozen strangers, is a good way to spend time. It's as harmless and ephemeral as any other culture that surrounds large and varied hobbies.
The other... well... there's something rotten in the old State of Denmark. Gamer Culture as it exists in its entitled, whiny, self absorbed state is simply awful.
Im rather with Polonius on this one.... the folks who fall under "gaming culture" will certainly get together and discuss games they like, and quite often things will get testy with questions and responses like "What system(s) do you play?" "Ohh, I have a Wii at the house" "Ohh cool, so you like Mario Kart or Smash Bros. better?"
Gamer Culture goes off the deep end with ridiculous gak... I actually saw in a local Game Stop, a dude being "berated".. or at least, talked down to, because he was looking at buying the "wrong" head set for his system.
dementedwombat wrote: Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.
I think it is. I mean, magazines like Game Informer are still around. I just think that with so many games out there, it's really been stretched. I can't remember the last time I heard the term "hardcore" or "casual" when referring to gaming. Now its just "Oh, I play X, X, and X".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Never buy a brand new game and stick to whatever console/pc you like. I'm a happy PlayStation player, I don't care that 'I could build the same system on a pc for cheaper' I'm happy with my console. Plus I like the big television.
Eh, I wouldn't say never. A lot of indie games are well worth supporting, and some of the AAA titles are worth buying or preordering. Hell, I reserved RE: HD Remake and it's a blast. I'd say just be more picky with what you buy new, and don't just buy it because it's COD+1.
OP: I guess this only matters if you identify with a larger group and subscribe to the various forms of media.
My gaming is largely with friends and not some general lottery of playing with strangers.
I am fairly selective for reviews, a quick check on Metacritic and maybe see what the "Cynical Brit" has to say.
I have ALWAYS "gamed" if it be tabletop or electronic, PC or console they all have their place and if you like your games you do not care too much where it comes from.
The culture comes into play when I think my gaming is messed with... Steam listing all those Pre-purchase and "Early Access" (Alpha) with no initial differentiation gets my knickers in a twist.
Hearing news from people of who I am and what I want or don't want makes me want to figure out how to not hear them anymore because they are a bother.
I am tired of those who wish to categorize or use "gaming culture" for their own ends: they have no right to it and most of us do not care what they think and it just makes them louder.
So yeah, I could see people getting tired of the loud voices, I find it best to ignore them and keep on doing what you are doing: we are all our own special snowflake.
I'm a long time tabletop and computer gamer. I've competed and I've written for a couple gaming websites. (The Game Agent for example) I'm firmly a part of gaming culture, that culture's changed and adapted a lot over the years, but I think it's still present and viable. However, like most things you only hear from the extreme ends.
dementedwombat wrote: Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.
Despairing the end of gamer culture is a pretty big factor in gamer culture, actually.
Rant time:
Here's the problem. For about 20 years, from the first Video game crash of 1983 through the mid 2000s, video gamers were mostly kids and what we'll charitably call individuals in the social hinterlands. In other words, losers.
As gaming gains more and more mainstream acceptance, a lot of gamer types are realizing a horrible truth: they're not losers because they play games. They're just losers, and they happen to play games. Now, just because their losers doesn't mean they want to accept that. They've blamed external forces for so long, that they cannot accept that the problem is them.
That's why hard core, fedora and trench coat wearing Gamer Culture is so toxic. These are people that lived under the delusion that their alienation and marginalization was due to their hobby. That gak simply ain't true, not when you've got frat boys playing Xbox and Homecoming queens that play WOW. But they can't handle it. They want gaming (and nerd culture in general) to go back to being niche, so at least they can pretend to be normal sized fish in a small pond.
dementedwombat wrote: Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.
Despairing the end of gamer culture is a pretty big factor in gamer culture, actually.
Rant time:
Here's the problem. For about 20 years, from the first Video game crash of 1983 through the mid 2000s, video gamers were mostly kids and what we'll charitably call individuals in the social hinterlands. In other words, losers.
As gaming gains more and more mainstream acceptance, a lot of gamer types are realizing a horrible truth: they're not losers because they play games. They're just losers, and they happen to play games. Now, just because their losers doesn't mean they want to accept that. They've blamed external forces for so long, that they cannot accept that the problem is them.
That's why hard core, fedora and trench coat wearing Gamer Culture is so toxic. These are people that lived under the delusion that their alienation and marginalization was due to their hobby. That gak simply ain't true, not when you've got frat boys playing Xbox and Homecoming queens that play WOW. But they can't handle it. They want gaming (and nerd culture in general) to go back to being niche, so at least they can pretend to be normal sized fish in a small pond.
To be fair, 2014 was a super contentious year -- BUT note that it has only been so ugly because deeply entrenched prejudices are being confronted and upended. I think "gamer culture" (something in which we all share and to which we all contribute) is actually becoming more mature and, as with anything else, there are growing pains. For most of us, who aren't receiving (for example) death threats, the worst of it is argument fatigue. I think its a credit to gamers that we have been having these discussions instead of dismissing our hobby as "just games," which is what would have been said not so long ago.
I like what Polonius wrote, I think it hit the nail on the head.
There are those who would aspire to nothing.
It is awfully nice to say you are being prevented from success because of the group you belong to.
Gaming is now something that "normal" adults do for leisure.
It is a funny kind of #gaming-is-not-your-shield: if life is not going your way, it is not because you are a gamer and it's "stereotype".
It is a label that has evolved to the general population.
They may have to move-on to being an Emo or something.
dementedwombat wrote: Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.
"Gamer culture" as people commonly describe it is basically just The Internet.
A seething mass of disagreeing opinions and bitter cynicism. It doesn't really matter what the topic is. People on The Internet will express their opinion on video games as forcefully as they will religion or politics or anything else.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sometimes I feel it is enough to stop gaming. First is the farce that is game journalism, the idea that these are somehow not all bought out by people.
Football World Cup bidding process
And then comes the PC master race and console wars.
Rugby League VS Rugby Union VS American Football (admittedly, I don't know much about this one). Team A fans VS Team B fans (Rangers V Celtic being the first example coming to mind)
And then comes in those horrible gamer gate and Anita saarkeesion debacles that just seem old and out of date already.
The firing of John McCririck from presenting Channel 4 horse racing and the various controversies and opinions involved in that.
the righteousness and blindness of gamers that refuse to acknowledge the problems with gaming?
Everyone with strong opinions on anything ever
It just feels stupId sometimes.
Why do we get caught up in this culture war and stuff and why can't we enjoy gaming?
Basically, there are a lot of people in the world interested in different things. And a subset of that lot of people in the world interested in different things are jerks. And a subset of that lot of people in the world interested in different things who are jerks are very vocal jerks.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sometimes I feel it is enough to stop gaming. First is the farce that is game journalism, the idea that these are somehow not all bought out by people.
Football World Cup bidding process
And then comes the PC master race and console wars.
Rugby League VS Rugby Union VS American Football (admittedly, I don't know much about this one). Team A fans VS Team B fans (Rangers V Celtic being the first example coming to mind)
And then comes in those horrible gamer gate and Anita saarkeesion debacles that just seem old and out of date already.
The firing of John McCririck from presenting Channel 4 horse racing and the various controversies and opinions involved in that.
the righteousness and blindness of gamers that refuse to acknowledge the problems with gaming?
Everyone with strong opinions on anything ever
It just feels stupId sometimes.
Why do we get caught up in this culture war and stuff and why can't we enjoy gaming?
Basically, there are a lot of people in the world interested in different things. And a subset of that lot of people in the world interested in different things are jerks. And a subset of that lot of people in the world interested in different things who are jerks are very vocal jerks.
And one last item. The internet provides anonymity. I can flame you to my heart's content. And without a lot of research, you will never know who I am in real life (and even with that research you still might not be able to track me down if I've been careful enough).
As the saying goes, an armed society is a polite society. And even without physical weapons, there are still options in the real world when someone makes the wrong kind of fuss in a physical community. These can range from public shaming, to persecution, to the women in the community ambushing you as you come home from the bar one night and beating you senseless (yes, this happens; yes, the men that it happens to - and it's always men - invariably deserve it). It's much harder to retaliate in a meaningful fashion in a virtual community, particularly when the one causing trouble is quite literally only visiting the community to cause trouble and get him or herself banned.
From my own experience, the most disturbing things I know actually happened.
Reality can be stranger than fiction.
Gaming is a hobby, it is something we feel strongly about, strong feelings lead to actions: lord knows where it would take us from there... all we can do is hope no alcohol was involved.
purplefood wrote: There's something deeply disturbing about what you just said.
Which part - the women ambushing a man on the way home from the bar and beating him senseless?
From what I understand, that used to happen (and might still) in some very small Iberian (and possibly other places as well) communities - if the victim was a known wife beater.
purplefood wrote: There's something deeply disturbing about what you just said.
Which part - the women ambushing a man on the way home from the bar and beating him senseless?
From what I understand, that used to happen (and might still) in some very small Iberian (and possibly other places as well) communities - if the victim was a known wife beater.
Not that, I think it was more the way I read your post than anything.
I dunno if it's relevent, but i find the gaming thing has got progressively worse.
I bought an xbox one, worst pos ever. Hardware is bad, Ui is so slow to the extent of finding out which of your friends online takes a minute of hanging. No options for anything, settings are so minimal. No dvd upscaling. I have a decent surround reciever to which i had to buy an analog mixer just so i can talk to friends.
Destiny was a bad joke, Halo is loosing it's soul, MCC is wrecked, every franchise i loved turned bad.
Playstation 2 slim, best console. Plays ps1 games, dvds, it's tiny and quiet, and has ethernet and optical.
eskimo wrote: I dunno if it's relevent, but i find the gaming thing has got progressively worse.
I bought an xbox one, worst pos ever. Hardware is bad, Ui is so slow to the extent of finding out which of your friends online takes a minute of hanging. No options for anything, settings are so minimal. No dvd upscaling. I have a decent surround reciever to which i had to buy an analog mixer just so i can talk to friends.
Destiny was a bad joke, Halo is loosing it's soul, MCC is wrecked, every franchise i loved turned bad.
Playstation 2 slim, best console. Plays ps1 games, dvds, it's tiny and quiet, and has ethernet and optical.
At least gaming is cheap compared to GW.
I've always preferred Playstation, and, IMO, the PS4 doesn't disappoint. I always read the various back end, "techy" stuff and how much engineering went into systems, and Playstation has ALWAYS impressed me. It is, IMHO an embarrassment to Microsoft, or should be, what they've put to market with XBox One. From your description, and that of many of my own friends, it makes me wonder how much longer MS can keep up their "efforts" in the console game. Yeah, I know they have a solid share, but, at least most of the people that I personally know are actually going down to various game shops, turning in their Xboxes in favor of Playstations.
One nitpick though.... did Halo ever have a soul?? lol.
And you got no argument from me on gaming being cheap in comparison to GW
I'm in my thirties, I don't see how "gaming culture" affects anybody my age frankly.
I only hear or read about it on the rare occasions I stick my head in on dakka these days, the whole Anita Sarkeesian thing I would have been blissfully unaware of if I didn't come on here.
I go to work, exercise, read, write, paint, go to comedy clubs, drink heavily, and in amongst all that, play video games maybe 6-10 hours a week.
I chat to my friends about them in the pub, and perhaps read the occasional review on the steam community or Metacritic if I am going to buy something, but really, why does the "community" even need to bother you? Just ignore it and enjoy your hobby.
Honestly, I dont even know if there is such a thing as "gaming culture" in this day and age. Most people play games, its a little part of everyones lives. I think everyone I know occasionally drinks a few tinnies and plays the Xbox or does an hour on an RTS before bed, but why and where does a "culture" come into it?
I suspect that "gaming culture" is really "trendy, youthful people with dyed hair and piercings culture" because I know about a hundred people who play games, but don't listen to "gaming" podcasts, watch "gaming" Youtubers, or read "gaming" magazines.
If this gak bugs you, play games at home with your mates and ignore the whole "culture" thing.
I find that my interest in gaming/nerd culture is directly inverse of what's going with my romantic life. If you're single then all the gaming interests take forefront and you obsess over the dumbest stuff, why isn't X happening, sever's being ganky, verbal wars over systems, etc. But when I'm out at the clubs or dating somebody where sex is involved my attitude is like what's a video game? Who cares about minor issue X, I'm going out and getting some tail tonight! I think that most people get wrapped up in games or other hobbies as deeply as they do because they are filling in for other areas of their life where they are unhappy and using games as a coping mechanism. (be it work or love life they are feeling deficient somewhere) In order to deal with life's stresses some people drink, some people use drugs, some people play games, the more unhappy they are with their lifepath the deeper they tend to push with their coping choice.
Videos games are meant to be a fun way to relax, and as much as I love them when it becomes an obsessive part of life you need to take a break get laid and suddenly all the "problems" with gaming are suddenly insignificant. When your life is in balance and you have other outlets for enjoyment "gaming culture" tends to be pretty low on the list of things to be concerned with.
Ever notice how quickly guys disappear when they find somebody they are serious about, or when they get married? It's not just because their wives have them on lock down, most of them move onto more important stuff. The guys who are usually the most obsessive gamers are usually single, some are married but are using gaming as their escape their life at home. Guys who have active social lives and are out dating tend not to be hanging out at games stores or putting in much time with online gaming.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sometimes I feel it is enough to stop gaming. First is the farce that is game journalism, the idea that these are somehow not all bought out by people. And then comes the PC master race and console wars. And then comes in those horrible gamer gate and Anita saarkeesion debacles that just seem old and out of date already. the righteousness and blindness of gamers that refuse to acknowledge the problems with gaming? It just feels stupId sometimes. Why do we get caught up in this culture war and stuff and why can't we enjoy gaming?
That's not gaming problems so much as the internet is a cesspool and brings out the absolute worst in people.
And guess which kind of community uses the internet the most?
Also none of that affects your personal ability to play video games, aside from having to deal with idiots in multiplayer games but we've been dealing with that ever since online multiplayer became a reality.
dementedwombat wrote: Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.
Despairing the end of gamer culture is a pretty big factor in gamer culture, actually.
Rant time:
Here's the problem. For about 20 years, from the first Video game crash of 1983 through the mid 2000s, video gamers were mostly kids and what we'll charitably call individuals in the social hinterlands. In other words, losers.
As gaming gains more and more mainstream acceptance, a lot of gamer types are realizing a horrible truth: they're not losers because they play games. They're just losers, and they happen to play games. Now, just because their losers doesn't mean they want to accept that. They've blamed external forces for so long, that they cannot accept that the problem is them.
That's why hard core, fedora and trench coat wearing Gamer Culture is so toxic. These are people that lived under the delusion that their alienation and marginalization was due to their hobby. That gak simply ain't true, not when you've got frat boys playing Xbox and Homecoming queens that play WOW. But they can't handle it. They want gaming (and nerd culture in general) to go back to being niche, so at least they can pretend to be normal sized fish in a small pond.
I'm not going to lie; that's a pretty terrible viewpoint and attitude. You've taken at a conservative estimate tens of thousands of people and unilaterally declared them to be losers beyond redemption, incapable of being anything but. I have to assume that this is an overly simplified version of your viewpoint spawned by your dislike of the gamergate thing.... but c'mon man. That whole post was just bad and spiteful. It's not like you have to be some kind of gakky loser as you posit to somehow not want something you love to change. That's pretty much bog standard normal human behavior. Gamers aren't some sort of extra special kind of evil.
Ever notice how quickly guys disappear when they find somebody they are serious about, or when they get married? It's not just because their wives have them on lock down, most of them move onto more important stuff. The guys who are usually the most obsessive gamers are usually single, some are married but are using gaming as their escape their life at home. Guys who have active social lives and are out dating tend not to be hanging out at games stores or putting in much time with online gaming.
I'm part of an older gaming community, i'm the youngest, single, and play the least it seems, atm anyway. The majority of the members are married with kids. They are also american and european too. Your statement i think is just guesswork. There's plenty of people who are single and do lots of sport or spend a lot the pub/ bar.
I'd be happy to play video games over tabletop, just video games in the current generation i don't find that fun. And to be honest, i find it impressive/ suprising how good modellers with families find the time for such impressive work.
eskimo wrote: I dunno if it's relevent, but i find the gaming thing has got progressively worse.
I bought an xbox one, worst pos ever. Hardware is bad, Ui is so slow to the extent of finding out which of your friends online takes a minute of hanging. No options for anything, settings are so minimal. No dvd upscaling. I have a decent surround reciever to which i had to buy an analog mixer just so i can talk to friends.
Destiny was a bad joke, Halo is loosing it's soul, MCC is wrecked, every franchise i loved turned bad.
Playstation 2 slim, best console. Plays ps1 games, dvds, it's tiny and quiet, and has ethernet and optical.
At least gaming is cheap compared to GW.
I've always preferred Playstation, and, IMO, the PS4 doesn't disappoint. I always read the various back end, "techy" stuff and how much engineering went into systems, and Playstation has ALWAYS impressed me. It is, IMHO an embarrassment to Microsoft, or should be, what they've put to market with XBox One. From your description, and that of many of my own friends, it makes me wonder how much longer MS can keep up their "efforts" in the console game. Yeah, I know they have a solid share, but, at least most of the people that I personally know are actually going down to various game shops, turning in their Xboxes in favor of Playstations.
One nitpick though.... did Halo ever have a soul?? lol.
And you got no argument from me on gaming being cheap in comparison to GW
If it weren't for Halo, i'd have another PS. I had a PS3 and it was great before it broke, better than my 360. PS also has Final Fantasy 10 HD and i prefer the controller for non-fps gaming.
Halo's soul i refer to was the multiplayer. Moon like jumping, tricks jumps, fun glitches, great custom games, explosion only gametypes, vehicle racing, jumping, driving up walls and off cliffs. Sniper games, zombies, strange bomb and ctf games, maps that are platformer challenges, elimination types, the list is endless.
I know you were joking but to a lot of people Halo sold the xbox one to them, on forums and Facebook you see people saying they have/ will sell their console because of the Halo problem, it's nuts. And i feel the same, my console gets played for 2 hours a week at most.
I'm not going to lie; that's a pretty terrible viewpoint and attitude. You've taken at a conservative estimate tens of thousands of people and unilaterally declared them to be losers beyond redemption, incapable of being anything but. I have to assume that this is an overly simplified version of your viewpoint spawned by your dislike of the gamergate thing.... but c'mon man. That whole post was just bad and spiteful. It's not like you have to be some kind of gakky loser as you posit to somehow not want something you love to change. That's pretty much bog standard normal human behavior. Gamers aren't some sort of extra special kind of evil.
I didn't say that they were losers beyond redemption, but that they were losers that don't want to do the hard work of redeeming themselves.
You're absolutely right in that gamers aren't special in that (or any regard), but that's part of my point: being a gamer doesn't make you special. They're just frustrated people that have very little power or influence, so that turns toxic in how they view "outsiders" to gaming. It's not my bad attitude that makes online gaming insanely intolerant to anybody that's not a white guy, or that sees themselves as somehow the victims of a market that brings them more and better gaming choices than ever before (at lower prices, adjusted for inflation!)
dementedwombat wrote: Is "gaming culture" even a thing anymore? I kind of thought it has gotten to the point that so many people play video games that "playing video games" isn't really enough of a niche to hang a cultural identity on.
Despairing the end of gamer culture is a pretty big factor in gamer culture, actually.
Rant time:
Here's the problem. For about 20 years, from the first Video game crash of 1983 through the mid 2000s, video gamers were mostly kids and what we'll charitably call individuals in the social hinterlands. In other words, losers.
As gaming gains more and more mainstream acceptance, a lot of gamer types are realizing a horrible truth: they're not losers because they play games. They're just losers, and they happen to play games. Now, just because their losers doesn't mean they want to accept that. They've blamed external forces for so long, that they cannot accept that the problem is them.
That's why hard core, fedora and trench coat wearing Gamer Culture is so toxic. These are people that lived under the delusion that their alienation and marginalization was due to their hobby. That gak simply ain't true, not when you've got frat boys playing Xbox and Homecoming queens that play WOW. But they can't handle it. They want gaming (and nerd culture in general) to go back to being niche, so at least they can pretend to be normal sized fish in a small pond.
I think that's kind of a steep assumption. For the longest time, if you read books you were a loser. I think saying that people are mad because they're still losers and have nothing to blame it on is a rather poor and crass hypothesis. Rather, I'd propose that people are struggling to deal with a community that has so rapidly evolved from what it was.
Books, music, and cinema have had plenty of time to evolve and mature without causing stimulus overload. Sports have also had a relatively long time. But in contrast, think about video games. Try playing Super Mario Bros. or Duck Hunt and then go play the newest Call of Duty. The change is literally astounding.
There are still elitist asshats in the gaming community, but that applies to literally any hobby.
eskimo wrote: I dunno if it's relevent, but i find the gaming thing has got progressively worse.
I bought an xbox one, worst pos ever. Hardware is bad, Ui is so slow to the extent of finding out which of your friends online takes a minute of hanging. No options for anything, settings are so minimal. No dvd upscaling. I have a decent surround reciever to which i had to buy an analog mixer just so i can talk to friends.
Destiny was a bad joke, Halo is loosing it's soul, MCC is wrecked, every franchise i loved turned bad.
Playstation 2 slim, best console. Plays ps1 games, dvds, it's tiny and quiet, and has ethernet and optical.
At least gaming is cheap compared to GW.
I don't know if quality has gone down, just it's focus; With earlier gaming systems, it was Games. Period. Now, so much time and money is being put into online shops, Netflix deals, and similar in order to be a worse computer instead of just focusing on why people buy consoles in the first place; the games. Just seems kinda odd to me.
It's probably why League of Legends has grown to be a huge worldwide phenomenon while Microsft, EA, Sony, and Nintendo only dream of sharing space with them; LoL focuses only on the game, not on all this extra crap.
eskimo wrote: I dunno if it's relevent, but i find the gaming thing has got progressively worse.
I bought an xbox one, worst pos ever. Hardware is bad, Ui is so slow to the extent of finding out which of your friends online takes a minute of hanging. No options for anything, settings are so minimal. No dvd upscaling. I have a decent surround reciever to which i had to buy an analog mixer just so i can talk to friends.
Destiny was a bad joke, Halo is loosing it's soul, MCC is wrecked, every franchise i loved turned bad.
Playstation 2 slim, best console. Plays ps1 games, dvds, it's tiny and quiet, and has ethernet and optical.
At least gaming is cheap compared to GW.
I don't know if quality has gone down, just it's focus; With earlier gaming systems, it was Games. Period. Now, so much time and money is being put into online shops, Netflix deals, and similar in order to be a worse computer instead of just focusing on why people buy consoles in the first place; the games. Just seems kinda odd to me.
It's probably why League of Legends has grown to be a huge worldwide phenomenon while Microsft, EA, Sony, and Nintendo only dream of sharing space with them; LoL focuses only on the game, not on all this extra crap.
Leage of Legends is a game. They don't need to indulge in "extra crap".
Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are console manufacturers.
By indulging in all the "extra crap", they hope to appeal to a wider market and thus make more profit. Tbh I just ignore all the extra crap like netflix etc, but I don't grudge Microsoft (I have an X360) for introducing it all. Though being able to watch Youtube on my dad's 50" LCD tv is awesome. Some people might like having one all purpose entertainment system, as opposed to having to get a game console, a dvd player, a blu ray player, a music player, and a PC/laptop for online browsing. The "extra crap" serves a purpose.
In my parents lounge we have an X360, a Nintendo Wii (bought for my mom, but she never plays games so its only been used once on the day it was purchased), a dvd player, and a blu ray player. Getting them all hooked up to the tv and having to switch AV channels all the time is a pain in the arse, especially when we misplace the remote. One single console like an Xbone or PS4 would solve that.
About the only thing I which I watch is MXO reviews of Skyrim mods and even that infrequently, and I come here also infrequently when I am bored so I guess I am out of the loop.
Is there actually a culture of gamers? I know there was that weird series of Southpark making fun of the morons who watch other people play video games. Is that the kind of thing we are talking about?
A can of works filled to the brim with feces. Long story short: female "developer" makes false claims, gets called out for it, tries to sell it as sexism, which then calls in SJW and actual sexists alike who get into a fight, insults over insults over insults...the usual.
A consumer revolt movement protesting against alleged and proven incidences of corruption, collusion and unethical behaviour in video game journalism; with an alleged minority (it's the internet, where almost everyone is anonymous so their "membership" of Gamer Gate can't be proven either way) of vocal extremists who carry out harassment and trolling.
Its not an organisation or a Hive Mind, there is no actual membership or leadership. ANYBODY can post under the hash tag and claim to be a part of it.
At its most fundamental level, to say "I agree with Gamer Gate" is to say "I think journalists should adhere to a professional code of conduct and ethics". It's an opinion, shared by a wide variety of people whether left wing or right, male or female, white, black, Arab or Asian, feminist MRA or neutral.
The fact that some people who are pro Gamer Gate, but also hold anti feminist views and/or troll and harass people (something which BOTH sides, as well as neutral 3rd party trolls have done btw) does not mean that Gamer Gate itself is anti feminist etc.
I might be pro animal rights or a feminist, AND a Neo Nazi but that doesn't make all animal rights activists and Feminists neo Nazis.
Basically we've got three simultaneous issues.
A series of scandals in a video game journalism community with a strong left wing feminist /"SJW" (the pejorative) bias. A consumer revolt protesting against said scandals. Trolls (possibly dominated by 3rd parties, we not really know) targeting both sides.
Both sides find it convenient to blame the other side for this trolling to discredit opposing views.
I've made no secret which side I'm on, but I think I've phrased it as objectively as possible.
The distressing part is that people insist on trying to make it an actual "culture", some kind of membership, some common binding thread.
All it really needs to be in the literal sense is people who like to play games which I figure can include sports = entertainment with a competitive spirit.
Mix-in consumerism = money and it all starts getting ugly since all kinds of motivations come into play.
I would be more likely to call myself a "strategist" than a gamer but I guess it really is what kind of label you wish to take-on with all the connotations that entails.
It is far easier to address a named group of people like "gamer" than "outspoken-misogynistic-motivated-bullies-who-happen-to-play-games", why worry about being particular?
People like to hide in a crowd if they are insecure, people may leave that membership if that collective comes under fire for behaviors.
The laughable label of journalists of some game review sites seemed to honestly think if they loudly proclaim the death of "gamers" they would then have no relevance.
I suppose if game reviewers/journalists stopped being controversial or entertaining their relevance would fade.
So yeah, "gaming culture" I will pick and choose but will not participate in overly much other than with you fine folk in Dakka!
eskimo wrote: I dunno if it's relevent, but i find the gaming thing has got progressively worse.
I bought an xbox one, worst pos ever. Hardware is bad, Ui is so slow to the extent of finding out which of your friends online takes a minute of hanging. No options for anything, settings are so minimal. No dvd upscaling. I have a decent surround reciever to which i had to buy an analog mixer just so i can talk to friends.
Destiny was a bad joke, Halo is loosing it's soul, MCC is wrecked, every franchise i loved turned bad.
Playstation 2 slim, best console. Plays ps1 games, dvds, it's tiny and quiet, and has ethernet and optical.
At least gaming is cheap compared to GW.
I don't know if quality has gone down, just it's focus; With earlier gaming systems, it was Games. Period. Now, so much time and money is being put into online shops, Netflix deals, and similar in order to be a worse computer instead of just focusing on why people buy consoles in the first place; the games. Just seems kinda odd to me.
It's probably why League of Legends has grown to be a huge worldwide phenomenon while Microsft, EA, Sony, and Nintendo only dream of sharing space with them; LoL focuses only on the game, not on all this extra crap.
Leage of Legends is a game. They don't need to indulge in "extra crap".
Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are console manufacturers.
By indulging in all the "extra crap", they hope to appeal to a wider market and thus make more profit. Tbh I just ignore all the extra crap like netflix etc, but I don't grudge Microsoft (I have an X360) for introducing it all. Though being able to watch Youtube on my dad's 50" LCD tv is awesome. Some people might like having one all purpose entertainment system, as opposed to having to get a game console, a dvd player, a blu ray player, a music player, and a PC/laptop for online browsing. The "extra crap" serves a purpose.
In my parents lounge we have an X360, a Nintendo Wii (bought for my mom, but she never plays games so its only been used once on the day it was purchased), a dvd player, and a blu ray player. Getting them all hooked up to the tv and having to switch AV channels all the time is a pain in the arse, especially when we misplace the remote. One single console like an Xbone or PS4 would solve that.
Yes, but there comes a point. Especially with the Kinect, where gamers say they don't want it, including some of this extra crap is pointless. Don't get me wrong, having a PS3 with a Blu-Ray player that can access Youtube is awesome, but that's not a hard feature. Adding in things like trying to sync it with my PC, home theater network, etc., seem pointless to me. I'd rather have a PS4 with Blu-Ray player and the option to buy a "Home Theater System" PS4 bundle with the aforementioned features if it meant better game development and system design.
Aye, the Kinect should never have been bundled in with the Xbone. Including an untested unproven peripheral that the average Gamer didn't want (We've had a Wii for nigh on 5 years now and neither I nor my brother have ever used it) bundled in with the basic console made it far too expensive.
But regarding the Playstation and Bluray. Aren't PS games based on BluRay tech? I thought bluray disks were an important technological advancement over DVD's.
From the very start of this generation, Video Game consoles should have come in multiple packages.
Gamer focused packages - cheaper, sans Kinect etc.
And Home Entertainment packages. All the extra bells and whistles.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: A consumer revolt movement protesting against alleged and proven incidences of corruption, collusion and unethical behaviour in video game journalism;
Ahah, no.
Actually it is a hashtag on Twitter.
And this hashtag is used quite rarely to speak about corruption, collusion and unethical behavior in video game journalism, and a lot to attack detractors of the hashtag, or “SJW” in general, or…
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I've made no secret which side I'm on, but I think I've phrased it as objectively as possible.
Not really, no. You put all the emphasis on what you believe GamerGate to be about, while neglecting the facts of what it actually is. It is really, clearly and for all to see, a hashtag. And it does not take much research to find out how people using the hashtag have no consensus whatsoever on what it is about. Cue “metalgate”, for instance.
Said hashtag was a social media campaign initiated by a group of people who wanted a bunch of idiots to cover for them while they attacked people they didn't like. Naturally, they found a bunch of suckers. As a result, it has thus far not managed to exceed its ignoble beginnings; quite frankly, it never will.
I don't use said hashtag to define gamer culture to begin with, though, so idk how much relevance this has to the thread topic.
But regarding the Playstation and Bluray. Aren't PS games based on BluRay tech? I thought bluray disks were an important technological advancement over DVD's.
I *think* so, at least on the PS4 I think it is. I'm not overly sure that it was integral to the PS3 other than they had it.... Remember when the PS3 and 360 first came out, the "new" home video format war was kicking off... 360 siding with "HDDVD" and PS with Blu-Ray. So, at least on the PS3, I don't believe that the discs were necessarily an HD format to contain more info.
Clearly we all get our info on it from different sources, which leads to different perceptions.
I imagine you lot read sites like Kotaku, Polygon and Gawker.
I don't. The last time I regularly used such sites was almost a decade ago, and that was Gamespot and IGN. These days I only watch youtubers like...
Angry Joe (mostly neutral as he wants to stay out of it, but hes biased against GG). TotalBiscuit. (explicitly not a member of GG, but is a vocal critic of industry corruption). Mundane Matt. Sargon of Akkad. NEET Life. (female). Shoe0nHead (female). Cheshire Cat Studios (one of the four or so regular members is female). Extra Credits (anti GG). Thunderf00t. Jim Sterling (anti GG).
I don't use 4chan or Reddit, only Dakka.
If your primary or only sources are journalism sites like the ones I mentioned above, then I'm not surprised we have completely different perceptions.
Plus theres the whole NotYourShield thing, which you seem to prefer to ignore...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Said hashtag was a social media campaign initiated by a group of people who wanted a bunch of idiots to cover for them while they attacked people they didn't like.
Ahem.
Both sides find it convenient to blame the other side for this trolling to discredit opposing views.
Melissia wrote: Said hashtag was a social media campaign initiated by a group of people who wanted a bunch of idiots to cover for them while they attacked people they didn't like. Naturally, they found a bunch of suckers. As a result, it has thus far not managed to exceed its ignoble beginnings; quite frankly, it never will.
Zoe, Brianne and their merry bunch of SJW didn't invent #gamergate, the other side did.
Well to get to the OP it appears it is a VERY unanimous YES to being tired of gaming culture at least in the fun #Gamergate end of things.
I think it would be hard to be "tired" of it if there is little relevance to you personally. My part of being tired about it is people trying to force me to care.
As far as I go is do not mess with those fine people who make games I love. Pay them well and tell no lies on how good they are.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Aye, the Kinect should never have been bundled in with the Xbone. Including an untested unproven peripheral that the average Gamer didn't want (We've had a Wii for nigh on 5 years now and neither I nor my brother have ever used it) bundled in with the basic console made it far too expensive.
But regarding the Playstation and Bluray. Aren't PS games based on BluRay tech? I thought bluray disks were an important technological advancement over DVD's.
From the very start of this generation, Video Game consoles should have come in multiple packages.
Gamer focused packages - cheaper, sans Kinect etc.
And Home Entertainment packages. All the extra bells and whistles.
Aye, I believe they are. My PS3 drive broke, so I can play DVD's, but neither PS3 games or Blu-Ray movies.
Considering it's been a dominate theme in our discussion of gamer culture, it seems at least tangentially related though, don't you think?
Especially since it's not completely out of character for online behavior towards women. You can argue its an internet issue, and not a gamer issue, but that's starting to split some very fine hairs.
I think we can all agree that Gamergate was not gamings finest hour, and move on.
Compared to the admittedly lower grade, but for more common, hostility women and minorities face in gaming, GamerGate was flashier but not really the core issue.
hotsauceman1 wrote: Sometimes I feel it is enough to stop gaming. First is the farce that is game journalism, the idea that these are somehow not all bought out by people.
And then comes the PC master race and console wars.
And then comes in those horrible gamer gate and Anita saarkeesion debacles that just seem old and out of date already.
the righteousness and blindness of gamers that refuse to acknowledge the problems with gaming?
It just feels stupId sometimes.
Why do we get caught up in this culture war and stuff and why can't we enjoy gaming?
Because setting yourself up with an opinion that is not worth a lot is actually worth something if you're bought out to shill them.
PC master race because there are misconceptions about PC gaming vs consoles
Ms.Sarkesian is not even worth discussing
What problems? Don't like the game = don't buy it.
Right...so I suppose for all the women posting under that tag, their opinions don't count? They should be ignored? They have a..what's the term...internalized misogyny?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Right...so I suppose for all the women posting under that tag, their opinions don't count?
No, their opinions count as much as anyone else opinion. Are you using them to shield GamerGate from criticism? You seem like you are doing just that.
What...the feth... I really...don't get your logic.
I'm not, No.
You do realise what NotYourShield is don't you? Women in gaming, speaking out and making their opinions heard. If anyone is using women as a shield, its video game journalists trying to shift the media narrative away from their own scandals.
No, their opinions count as much as anyone else opinion.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: You do realise what NotYourShield is don't you? Women in gaming, speaking out and making their opinions heard.
Yeah, some women in gaming speaking out and making their opinions heard, and that is supposed to somehow show that GamerGate is awesome and you should not criticize it. What about this not being a shield?
I am not ignoring them any more than I am ignoring you. What do you want me to say? “Gamergate is a super-duper awesome consumer revolt that only cares about video game journalists corruption and nothing else because a woman on Twitter said so”?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am not ignoring them any more than I am ignoring you. What do you want me to say?
To condemn those involved in scandals regarding corruption and collusion...
People make allegations of unethical behaviour by journalists > all you ever care about is talking about how those people are sexist.
In all the months that this controversy has been dragging on for, I've never once seen you say "Actually, that is quite a serious allegation. Journalists really shouldn't be doing that".
Polonius wrote: Do you know why people care more about rape and death threats to women than about the ethics in gaming journalism?
Because one is threats of violence indicitive of a lynch mob mentality. The other is a "Scandal" about people writing stories about toys.
The general thought seems to be mocking the people that actually had faith in game reviews.
Why are we talking only about the death threats to Women? Why not the Pro-GG Journalists who were sent syringes with the notes "I hope you use me " with them? Why does THAT always get glossed over?
The "Feminist" side shouldn't have received death threats, everyone agrees on that. But nore should the GG side, and no one seems to acknowledge that those even happened.
Polonius wrote: Do you know why people care more about rape and death threats to women than about the ethics in gaming journalism?
Because one is threats of violence indicitive of a lynch mob mentality. The other is a "Scandal" about people writing stories about toys.
The general thought seems to be mocking the people that actually had faith in game reviews.
Why are we talking only about the death threats to Women? Why not the Pro-GG Journalists who were sent syringes with the notes "I hope you use me " with them? Why does THAT always get glossed over?
The "Feminist" side shouldn't have received death threats, everyone agrees on that. But nore should the GG side, and no one seems to acknowledge that those even happened.
That and it's never been proven, but people doubt some of those "death threats" ever even happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some people were sent them, but the amount seems blown out of proportion.
P.S. not saying it's right, just saying that I feel in this "war between sides" a lot of gak got way out of hand.
Polonius wrote: Do you know why people care more about rape and death threats to women than about the ethics in gaming journalism?
Because one is threats of violence indicitive of a lynch mob mentality. The other is a "Scandal" about people writing stories about toys.
The general thought seems to be mocking the people that actually had faith in game reviews.
Why are we talking only about the death threats to Women? Why not the Pro-GG Journalists who were sent syringes with the notes "I hope you use me " with them? Why does THAT always get glossed over?
The "Feminist" side shouldn't have received death threats, everyone agrees on that. But nore should the GG side, and no one seems to acknowledge that those even happened.
That and it's never been proven, but people doubt some of those "death threats" ever even happened. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure some people were sent them, but the amount seems blown out of proportion.
P.S. not saying it's right, just saying that I feel in this "war between sides" a lot of gak got way out of hand.
Polonius wrote: Do you know why people care more about rape and death threats to women than about the ethics in gaming journalism?
The vast majority of which were made by anonymous, possibly third party trolls who have not been identified as Gamer Gaters.
And btw, people on the gamer gate side have been also been trolled, harassed, threatened and doxxed. Not that you care.
You still don't seem to be getting it.
I don't care about the issue at all. But I know that when you ask the average person what they care about more, "harrassment of women" will usually rank ahead "ethics in game journalism."
I do not read what those journalist write, therefore I admit I tend to not care that much about them. And beside, all those “scandals” seemed quite shady. But yeah, I have a hard time considering them
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: People make allegations of unethical behaviour by journalists > all you ever care about is talking about how those people are sexist.
Well, I cared about how those people were sexist before they ever made any allegation about unethical behavior by journalists. I still do. And I will. Even if I start to take their allegation seriously I will still care about the fact they are sexist.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: In all the months that this controversy has been dragging on for, I've never once seen you say "Actually, that is quite a serious allegation. Journalists really shouldn't be doing that".
That is because I do not think I ever saw journalists clearly doing something that really they should not do.
Yeah I feel I have to point out that plenty of women are on the side of the "Anita Sarkeesian was talking out of her arse" team... probably the majority if the rest of the feminist issues are anything to go by. I mean, I pointed this out when Mel and I were talking about feminimisms image problem, its a well known fact that more women sigh and shake their heads when the feminists show up than go "yay you go sister!"
Incidentally, I feel as though the whole Fifty Shades of Grey outrage is relevant as well.
Loads of militant feminists are kicking off about it saying "Mr Gray is a rapist" when literally 99% of the market is women. Men don't read that gak, men didn't care about the movie, it was women, so they pit themselves against other women but seem to like to pretend like it is all Mattys fault even though he wouldn't read that gak if you paid him.
I am personally really tired of militant feminism, they cry about banning gak that other women like, even though they are a minority. More women like FSOG than despise it, and the majority certainly dont want to see it banned. As a libertarian and someone who believes in freedom of speech and deed I think its really disgusting the way they behave.Seriously what percentage of women want to see FSOG banned? Maybe 5% tops? Ive met loads of women who love that stupid gak, I havent in person met a single one who wants it banned. I think 3 or 4 girls at my work loved it and went to see it, and maybe 5 or 6 didnt care, but I haven't met a one who thinks Mr Gray is a penis-wielding oppressor.
Why do they get to be in charge of everything?
And when the majority of women say "don't read it if you don't like it" their only retort is "educate yourself and you will agree with me"
I think its really condescending, really arrogant, and really poisonous.
FSOG is gak, and crappy sexist games are gak, and Sports Illustrated is gak, and FHM is gak, and misogyny is really gak and I have got no time for it. As a married non-religious man with a smart and excellent wife I am all for total equality, but all of this "your hobby is against women" gak is just fething tiresome. I am really really tired of the noise this minority of really bad-tempered militant women make. As I have always said, they have a major image problem and they need to stop kicking off about minor gak if they want to be taken seriously, especially gak that 99% of the market for is bloody women!
You know, it seems like a good idea that the label "gamers" should be dead.
Since gamergate or even well before, misogyny will always be attached to it.
I am tired of trying to have decent discussion on the future direction of game software and then having some latent or active prejudice towards women pointed out as preventing it's proper development. Like with anything in life, yes, it can be there, also it can also be done without as well, spend your money appropriately.
This garbage keeps making good people feel like apologizing for their gender, which is also wrong.
What is that rule? If a thread goes on long enough it will talk about Nazis?
I suppose any on gaming will mention misogyny.
Kill the label, it is irredeemable now.
To be absolutely fair, misogyny in the gaming world, and in the real actual world that spawned it is vanishingly rare. It's simply the new buzzword that replaced sexism because sexism was losing it's luster. Having prejudice towards women is not inherently misogyny, stereotyping women is not inherently misogyny, pandering to men -or women - is not inherently misogyny.
Misogyny is hating women, solely and specifically because they are women. Attacking a specific woman, because you think she is a witch or a liar - not misogyny.
mattyrm wrote: Loads of militant feminists are kicking off about it saying "Mr Gray is a rapist"
Those so-called "militant" feminists are right.
He is a rapist.
Its audience doesn't change this at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: To be absolutely fair, misogyny in the gaming world, and in the real actual world that spawned it is vanishingly rare
Citation needed.
Recent studiesregarding STEM fields contradict your assertion. Studies showing the existence of gender bias in hiring practices and elsewhere are extremely common. Unsurprisingly, it's also mostly men that dismiss these studies out of hand or simply ignore their existence to begin with.
tl;dr: it's not rare, and saying that it's rare doesn't actually make it rare.
mattyrm wrote: Loads of militant feminists are kicking off about it saying "Mr Gray is a rapist"
Those so-called "militant" feminists are right.
He is a rapist.
Its audience doesn't change this at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: To be absolutely fair, misogyny in the gaming world, and in the real actual world that spawned it is vanishingly rare
Citation needed.
Recent studiesregarding STEM fields contradict your assertion. Studies showing the existence of gender bias in hiring practices and elsewhere are extremely common. Unsurprisingly, it's also mostly men that dismiss these studies out of hand or simply ignore their existence to begin with.
tl;dr: it's not rare, and saying that it's rare doesn't actually make it rare.
So, once again... misogyny... hatred of women simply because they are women.
I stated that sexism, prejudice and stereotyping are not inherently misogynistic , and you are refuting that by posting articles about the fact that gender bias exists? Since you apparently disagree with me, I would like to see your arguments about why sexism, prejudice and stereotyping by their very basic nature entail the hatred or contempt of women simply because they are women.
Once again, I am taking issue with the use of the word misogyny to replace various other words in our common societal lexicon that have actual definitions and meanings simply to create an emotional response because other words - that are technically correct and thus the words you should be using for things do not elicit the visceral response desired.
mattyrm wrote: Loads of militant feminists are kicking off about it saying "Mr Gray is a rapist"
Those so-called "militant" feminists are right.
He is a rapist.
Its audience doesn't change this at all.
Agreed. Overall, the book is horribly written, but from an objective stand point, it defines a rather abusive relationship, and not a traditional BDSM one either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: To be absolutely fair, misogyny in the gaming world, and in the real actual world that spawned it is vanishingly rare
Citation needed.
Recent studiesregarding STEM fields contradict your assertion. Studies showing the existence of gender bias in hiring practices and elsewhere are extremely common. Unsurprisingly, it's also mostly men that dismiss these studies out of hand or simply ignore their existence to begin with.
tl;dr: it's not rare, and saying that it's rare doesn't actually make it rare.
Misogyny is absolutely still alive in the real world. The "gaming world" I think a lot of it gets blown out of proportion, but the real world, especially countries outside the U.S., it is a much bigger deal.
mattyrm wrote: Loads of militant feminists are kicking off about it saying "Mr Gray is a rapist"
Those so-called "militant" feminists are right.
He is a rapist.
Its audience doesn't change this at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: To be absolutely fair, misogyny in the gaming world, and in the real actual world that spawned it is vanishingly rare
Citation needed.
Recent studiesregarding STEM fields contradict your assertion. Studies showing the existence of gender bias in hiring practices and elsewhere are extremely common. Unsurprisingly, it's also mostly men that dismiss these studies out of hand or simply ignore their existence to begin with.
tl;dr: it's not rare, and saying that it's rare doesn't actually make it rare.
So, once again... misogyny... hatred of women simply because they are women.
I stated that sexism, prejudice and stereotyping are not inherently misogynistic , and you are refuting that by posting articles about the fact that gender bias exists? Since you apparently disagree with me, I would like to see your arguments about why sexism, prejudice and stereotyping by their very basic nature entail the hatred or contempt of women simply because they are women.
Once again, I am taking issue with the use of the word misogyny to replace various other words in our common societal lexicon that have actual definitions and meanings simply to create an emotional response because other words - that are technically correct and thus the words you should be using for things do not elicit the visceral response desired.
How is misogyny separate from sexism? Please, explain this to me.
"Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender, typically against women. Sexism has been linked to stereotypes and gender roles."
Misogyny just refers to a specific type of prejudice or stereotyping, often also of a specific sexist nature. These words are not mutually exclusive.
"Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women."
A matter of degree and definition. Misogyny literally means hatred of women. The root words that make up misogyny = "hate women". Sexism =/= hatred of women. It can mean that, but it does not always do so.
It's the same as bigotry and racism:
Not all bigots/sexists are racists/misogynists.
All racists/misogynists are bigots/sexists.
A matter of degree and definition. Misogyny literally means hatred of women. The root words that make up misogyny = "hate women". Sexism =/= hatred of women. It can mean that, but it does not always do so.
It's the same as bigotry and racism:
Not all bigots/sexists are racists/misogynists.
All racists/misogynists are bigots/sexists.
But I feel like that's splitting hairs. Misogyny means hatred or dislike of women, as I quoted above. If you're sexist or prejudiced against women, I think it's clear you have underlying hate or at least dislike of them. Misogyny is really just a specific sexism or prejudice.
Edit: I see what you are saying. I guess I was just confused because the poster above me was trying to say that misogyny doesn't exist, even though prejudice and sexism still do.
Quite the opposite. It's using the word correctly and not robbing it of its meaning.
jreilly89 wrote: If you're sexist or prejudiced against women, I think it's clear you have underlying hate or at least dislike of them.
You can't know what that person is thinking. Misogyny means hatred of women. Sexism =/= hatred of women. It can be anything from disrespect to jealousy. None of those things have to involve hatred. As I said, they can, but they don't always where as misogyny always = hatred of women because that's what the word means.
jreilly89 wrote: Misogyny is really just a specific sexism or prejudice.
Which is exactly why we should not be throwing it around and should instead be using it correctly, not as a counter to anyone who dares even disagree with a woman.
Does the female protagonist consent to having sex with Grey?
Yes.
There, no rape. Not rocket science.
But Sig, she was obviously tricked/coerced/hypnotised/mind-controlled into sleeping with Grey (pick your goal-post moving excuse at your leisure... we'll call it rapesplaining: the act of intentional cognitive dissonance to explain why consensual sex is actually rape... somehow!)
Anyone who thinks that basic pick-up tricks are rape needs psychological attention. Fast. Cognitive dissonance is a super basic strategy, like telling an obviously beautiful woman that you love her humor as it it makes up for her lack of beauty.
I haven't read 50SoG, but isn't the main problem with it not BSDM, not the position difference (Her working and him being the boss), but because she says the safeword in one scene and he ignores it? I've heard all KINDS of claims about this, even hearing that it happens all the time, that it only happens in book 3, that it only happens in book 2, but I have NO idea and no intention of reading the book (You fooled me with Twilight, ladies, but you won't be so lucky this time....)
The point is, as an outsider looking in, all I ever hear is "It describes an abusive relationship", but am never given examples as to what is going on except one thing that constantly changes when it happens (And gives the impression that people are making it up or nobody read the books).
Slarg232 wrote: I haven't read 50SoG, but isn't the main problem with it not BSDM, not the position difference (Her working and him being the boss), but because she says the safeword in one scene and he ignores it?
That's just one of many, many problems with it. He's an emotionally manipulative, controlling bastard who flat out doesn't 'care whether or not he has her consent, and only ever bothers to try to get it so he can use it to abuse her further.
But the biggest problem is the idea that the author pushes that, if you're loving enough "he will change" (and I do use male pronouns here because let's face it the author probably never considered the opposite) and thus you should stick with an abusive, emotionally manipulative rapist to "save" him. This is a really common idea thrown out in religious fundamentalist circles (it's not as strange to find links to fundangelicalism here as you might think; porn is really popular amongst them) to try to shame people in to saying in abusive relationships instead of divorcing or separating. No surprise that it's pushed by them, as many of the men who have power in said fundy organizations are themselves notorious abusers, rapists, and pedophiles.
... be that as it may, I'm not sure what this particular topic has to do with gaming culture? I don't think 50SoG is exceptionally popular amongst the gaming crowd.
Bromsy wrote: I stated that sexism, prejudice and stereotyping are not inherently misogynistic
Devaluing someone for not having a penis is pretty fething misogynistic.
If that statement pisses you off, then BE pissed off.
What? If someone loves women, absolutely adores them - but is convinced say that women are just inherently stupider than men, that person is not a misogynist. He is sexist as hell, prejudiced and stereotyping half of the population of the Earth, but he doesn't hate women. I just want words to be used properly. People started throwing misogyny around because it's relatively fresh and sounds terrible. Now it is being overused to the point of absurdity.
Melissia wrote: That's just one of many, many problems with it. He's an emotionally manipulative, controlling bastard who flat out doesn't 'care whether or not he has her consent, and only ever bothers to try to get it so he can use it to abuse her further.
But the biggest problem is the idea that the author pushes that, if you're loving enough "he will change" (and I do use male pronouns here because let's face it the author probably never considered the opposite) and thus you should stick with an abusive, emotionally manipulative rapist to "save" him. This is a really common idea thrown out in religious fundamentalist circles (it's not as strange to find links to fundangelicalism here as you might think; porn is really popular amongst them) to try to shame people in to saying in abusive relationships instead of divorcing or separating. No surprise that it's pushed by them, as many of the men who have power in said fundy organizations are themselves notorious abusers, rapists, and pedophiles.
You know the author is female, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._L._Jame"
"Erika Mitchell (born 7 March 1963),[1] better known by her pen name E. L. James,[2] is a British author.'
Interesting leap of logic from a female author's portrayal of a fictional male character to religious fundamentalism.
Am I supposed to be floored by this "revelation" (which I was already aware of) instead of not giving a damn?
Because that's not happening. I already know that. If you had a point, you failed miserably to make it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: What? If someone loves women, absolutely adores them - but is convinced say that women are just inherently stupider than men, that person is not a misogynist.
Actually, yes.
mi·sog·y·ny məˈsäjənē noun dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
That qualifies for two out of the three qualifiers
mattyrm wrote: Loads of militant feminists are kicking off about it saying "Mr Gray is a rapist"
Those so-called "militant" feminists are right.
He is a rapist.
Its audience doesn't change this at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: To be absolutely fair, misogyny in the gaming world, and in the real actual world that spawned it is vanishingly rare
Citation needed.
Recent studiesregarding STEM fields contradict your assertion. Studies showing the existence of gender bias in hiring practices and elsewhere are extremely common. Unsurprisingly, it's also mostly men that dismiss these studies out of hand or simply ignore their existence to begin with.
tl;dr: it's not rare, and saying that it's rare doesn't actually make it rare.
I think it's worth noting that when you look closely at the wage gap between men and women, if you control for having the same jobs women are basically paid the same as men (there's still a very small gap). However, many more men work hiher ranked jobs within most industries, inflating their statistics over women. Some of it is women dropping out of the work force to raise a family rather than pursue a long term career, but that doesn't account for all of it as far as I can tell.
DarkLink wrote: I think it's worth noting that when you look closely at the wage gap between men and women, if you control for having the same jobs women are basically paid the same as men (there's still a very small gap). However, many more men work hiher ranked jobs within most industries, inflating their statistics over women. Some of it is women dropping out of the work force to raise a family rather than pursue a long term career, but that doesn't account for all of it as far as I can tell.
If you look at jobs which were traditionally male-focused but a lot of women have recently gone in to them (such as veterinarians), or traditionally female-focused but a lot of men have recently gone in to them (nursing), you'll see a pattern of pay increasing where there are more men and decreasing where there are more women.
I've never read 50 Shades or even paid much attention to it, but for the sake of this thread I went to the wiki article to start on some preliminary research and the first thing I see is origin as a Twilight Fan Fiction.
Suddenly all the things I hear about the book glorifying an abusive relationship make sooooo much sense XD
DarkLink wrote: I think it's worth noting that when you look closely at the wage gap between men and women, if you control for having the same jobs women are basically paid the same as men (there's still a very small gap). However, many more men work hiher ranked jobs within most industries, inflating their statistics over women. Some of it is women dropping out of the work force to raise a family rather than pursue a long term career, but that doesn't account for all of it as far as I can tell.
If you look at jobs which were traditionally male-focused but a lot of women have recently gone in to them (such as veterinarians), or traditionally female-focused but a lot of men have recently gone in to them (nursing), you'll see a pattern of pay increasing where there are more men and decreasing where there are more women.
Isn't it a bit fallacious to consider it based upon the idea that it's solely because mostly women work there and not because, until relatively recently, women were pretty much told they could only work unskilled labor that generally pays less?
Slarg232 wrote: Isn't it a bit fallacious to consider it based upon the idea that it's solely because mostly women work there and not because, until relatively recently, women were pretty much told they could only work unskilled labor that generally pays less?
That would be the case if it weren't 'for the examples of male-dominated professions losing prestige, wages, and benefits as more women get in to them, like veterinarians.
Am I supposed to be floored by this "revelation" (which I was already aware of) instead of not giving a damn?
Because that's not happening. I already know that. If you had a point, you failed miserably to make it.
I apologize, in your long tirade that veered off into a discussion concerning the alleged sexual deviance of "religious fundamentalists" you kept using gender neutral or male pronouns. Your failure to note the author's gender, much less use a specific pronoun to identify her cast some doubt as to whether you knew the gender of said author, especially when you allege the author was pushing a point that many would consider to be harmful towards women.
Would you say that her doing so was because of internalized sexism, or were other factors perhaps at play? You may PM me your answers if you so wish, I don't see the need for this thread to go further off topic.
In any event thank you for your clarification, and trying not to make any discussion personal.
mattyrm wrote: Loads of militant feminists are kicking off about it saying "Mr Gray is a rapist"
Those so-called "militant" feminists are right.
He is a rapist.
Its audience doesn't change this at all.
Please forgive any ignorance here about the target material because while I am sure neither of us have read, or will read the fether, Im guessing you at least will have read plenty of blogs by feminists and stuff, so probably know a lot more about the story than me.
But I saw the author talking about it on BBC Newsbeat, and she said that all of the "kinky" stuff the couple use like.. codewords or whatever, so he stops if she gets massively upset with the situation. She wrote the bloody thing, is that not the case? I don't see how it can be classified as rape if that is the case surely? You can enlighten me though im sure, being stereo-typically stuffy and British and having no interest in BDSM (and even less interest in FSOG) so you will have to give me an abridged version of what the fething stupid thing entails. I think reading about David Carradine kicking the bucket is the most I know about bizarre erotic practices, the most kinky thing I get up to is deviating from the missionary position after much coaxing from my wife.
The second question I have is linked that what I was saying about "popularity."
If the vast, VAST majority of women do not want to see FSOG banned, what do you think the point is of kicking off about it? I mean, even if it is totally inappropriate, the masses do not want to see this hubub, so dont you take my point, that booting off about these things is extremely counter-productive?
If feminists want to see change they need to get the masses on side, and that will never ever happen if they antagonize them. Do you not see my point? Its surely a bad decision to complain about things that the majority of women actually line up to see, because you are just providing the misogynists with great press, they can wave this stuff in the faces of women and say "see, the feminists are crazy, you should agree with me!"
Melissia wrote: So you're saying if something is popular it shouldn't be criticized? Would you say the same thing about extremist Islam in the middle east? And yes, I know you don't hesitate to criticize that unless you have a threat of ban going on. That's the point.
Obviously I'm not saying that, but the difference is that you need a strategy if your attempts are going to get you anywhere, criticizing Islam is much much easier because there is no gray area when it comes to killing people and blowing gak up.
If feminists alienate women, feminists aren't going to get gak accomplished, because they are actually alienating the half of the population you would think would actually tend to agree with them!
I keep saying it, I honestly believe they should save their ire for obviously and aggressively anti-women policies instead of picking of bloody hobbies. It comes up every time we talk about it on dakka dakka, I just think if they spent more time talking about the wage gap and less time dripping about books, or comics, or minis, or Princess getting rescued off Mario, then maybe important gak would actually get done.
Fundamentally its all our disagreement ever is, I think that its counterproductive because I have never bought into the "slippery slope" argument about anything at all.
I think we can all agree that just because a majority of people like something that doesn't make it right.
Some people just never think about what they are reading. Some people don't know what a healthy relationship even looks like. And some cultures at least in the US are raised to find abusive relationships to be acceptable. Still doesn't make it right or okay.
OT:
If it wasn't for Dakka I would of never learned about GG. I still see the call against sexism in gaming a, "well duh!". I am personally against corruption in journalism. But never used game journalists to base my decisions. As I can just wait a month and look at what you guys have to say and get a good idea (except for Destiny....worst game I've ever played).
Your exposure to the obsessive "gamer" culture is one you inflict upon yourself. I'm sure there are plenty of places to discuss all aspects of gaming in mature ways.
I keep saying it, I honestly believe they should save their ire for obviously and aggressively anti-women policies instead of picking of bloody hobbies. It comes up every time we talk about it on dakka dakka, I just think if they spent more time talking about the wage gap and less time dripping about books, or comics, or minis, or Princess getting rescued off Mario, then maybe important gak would actually get done.
There are different types of feminists. Good feminist work isn't discussed in public for the most part because people just don't care. Female circumsion, status of women in the Middle East, forced prostitution, divorce court law etc. all that stuff isn't as "catchy" as "ZOMG THAT FICTIONAL STORY IS SUPPORTING ZE RAPE CULTUUUUUUUUURE".
In general, people who even use the term "rape culture" are not to be taken seriously. Those people call themselves feminists while actually being hypocrits who just want to draw as much attention as they can. It's the same as with Zoe Quinn who purposefully made herself a victim by telling lies and then blaming it on sexism, using the term as a scapegoat. Same with Anita and that other weird lady with the ugly glasses...forgot the name. Zero productive / constructive input, just attention and money.
Anyone that says rape culture isn't a thing shouldn't be taken seriously. See what I did there?
Anyone that blames a victim of rape for being raped is perpetuating a culture where the rapist isn't at fault for their actions. Which is ridiculous yet it is the prevalent mind set.
Now you could say I don't go to where x is and do y because I don't want z to happen to me. But really all you are saying is its okay for x to do what it does on its own turf. So to hit a Dakka buzz topic, its roughly the same as saying ISIS is cool because what do you expect over there.
I've already confirmed it. It is in fact impressive the book even got published because apparently it was released in full (but unedited) on FanFiction.net prior to the publishing rights being picked up.
Now you could say I don't go to where x is and do y because I don't want z to happen to me. But really all you are saying is its okay for x to do what it does on its own turf. So to hit a Dakka buzz topic, its roughly the same as saying ISIS is cool because what do you expect over there.
By that logic, do you think booking a holiday in Syria is a sensible thing to do?
Come to think of it, I'd love to visit some of the Crusades era castles and cities like Antioch and Damascus. Stay tuned for my forthcoming Syrian Adventure blog.
And a lot of people apparently disagree that blowing your enemy's civilians up is wrong. Just look at Dakka Off-Topic's history-- you'll see plenty of examples of that. Does that mean that you think Matty was wrong?
Given the crap I've seen on places like A Voice For Men, it'd be rather hard to convince me that segments of Western civilization don't celebrate rape or see it as a tool to punish people you don't like.
Now you could say I don't go to where x is and do y because I don't want z to happen to me. But really all you are saying is its okay for x to do what it does on its own turf. So to hit a Dakka buzz topic, its roughly the same as saying ISIS is cool because what do you expect over there.
By that logic, do you think booking a holiday in Syria is a sensible thing to do?
Come to think of it, I'd love to visit some of the Crusades era castles and cities like Antioch and Damascus. Stay tuned for my forthcoming Syrian Adventure blog.
Melissia summed it up pretty well.
I personally enlisted into the Army to do my part in at least atempting to make a part of the world slightly more reasonable. So I think I can say I've practiced what I preach.
Edit: a minority would still imply a problem. A problem that all reasonable people should be absolutely opposed to.
So in a fine parallel to gamergate the thread gets hijacked to other interests.
50SOG really? <edit> and rape...
Can't wait for the game to come out so we can have this lively discussion again.
As long as human beings manage to be different from one another we will have prejudice, the trick is keeping it civil.
Just as has been pointed out; one person's consensual entertainment, is another's degrading smut pushing back fought for rights.
Too bad.
The content is fabricated, real world work shall be held to standards of law.
Go find something to censor somewhere else.
What angers are those whom try to force their will on a creative endeavor with a sense of entitlement beyond the scope of consumer.
YES, it is easy to be tired of gaming culture especially when games get rolled into topics of rape... what a mess.
And a lot of people apparently disagree that blowing your enemy's civilians up is wrong. Just look at Dakka Off-Topic's history-- you'll see plenty of examples of that. Does that mean that you think Matty was wrong?
No. It means that I think we should apply the same same standards of morality when evaluating the actions of ISIS and when evaluating our own actions. A "Fixed Moral Compass", to borrow a term from a certain wiener dog obsessed Dakka ite.
Case in point.
ISIS plants an IED in a densely populated urban area, with the intention of killing enemy soldiers (Syrian, Iraqi etc). It detonates, killing the target, but predictably kills X number of non combatant civilians.
A coalition air strike targets an ISIS safe house in a densely populated urban area. It destroys the target, but predictably kills X number of non combatant civilians. ( same could be said of Israeli air strikes on Gaza).
Why is the latter ok, when it's the "good guys" doing it? The result is the same - innocent people die.
(I'm also of the opinion that the RAF' s deliberate policy of bombing Germany's civilian population in WW2 was wrong, and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki).
This also applies to the Gamer Gate controversy. Certain Feminists have without a doubt been trolled, harassed and threatened, and that is objectively wrong, and criminal (regarding death threats).
But so have outspoken figures in Gamer Gate. (Syringes in the post etc).
I hope prosecutions are brought against those making death threats, no matter who they are, or who their victims are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talizvar wrote: So in a fine parallel to gamergate the thread gets hijacked to other interests.
50SOG really? <edit> and rape...
Can't wait for the game to come out so we can have this lively discussion again
Press x to spank.
Press y to internalize misogyny.
If it's a Telltale game, and its a parody of 50SoG, I'll play it.
Now you could say I don't go to where x is and do y because I don't want z to happen to me. But really all you are saying is its okay for x to do what it does on its own turf. So to hit a Dakka buzz topic, its roughly the same as saying ISIS is cool because what do you expect over there.
By that logic, do you think booking a holiday in Syria is a sensible thing to do?
Come to think of it, I'd love to visit some of the Crusades era castles and cities like Antioch and Damascus. Stay tuned for my forthcoming Syrian Adventure blog.
Melissia summed it up pretty well.
I personally enlisted into the Army to do my part in at least atempting to make a part of the world slightly more reasonable. So I think I can say I've practiced what I preach.
Edit: a minority would still imply a problem. A problem that all reasonable people should be absolutely opposed to.
Yes. But the topic under discussion is rape culture. When only a minority "segment" of society / a community subscribes to said views, it is fallacious to accuse the society/community at large of being a rape culture.
That robot was very nice iirc, and totally not killer.
mattyrm wrote: But I saw the author talking about it on BBC Newsbeat, and she said that all of the "kinky" stuff the couple use like.. codewords or whatever, so he stops if she gets massively upset with the situation.
It is called a safeword. I discovered about it through the band Spinefish, because they explained how the name of the band was initially a safeword. Cool band. Should give it a try.
mattyrm wrote: If the vast, VAST majority of women do not want to see FSOG banned, what do you think the point is of kicking off about it? I mean, even if it is totally inappropriate, the masses do not want to see this hubub, so dont you take my point, that booting off about these things is extremely counter-productive?
I have hardly ever seen any feminist calling for it to be banned. I do have seen many trying to raise awareness about everything that is wrong about this book. This is very, very different. There is no problem with enjoying 50soG. As someone who went to a “Rape and revenge” night at a movie festival, and enjoyed it a lot, I would be quite hypocritical to pretend nobody has the moral right to enjoy 50soG. But I certainly do not believe that what is displayed on the screen is good, or normal, or that is should be accepted, or anything. I keep a critical view of what is happening. And if someone was to criticize it, I would listen, and very likely agree.
As an aside, if you ever have the occasion, go watch A gun for Jennifer. No rape on-screen, but tons and tons of sweet, bloody, badass justice, and that is what I cam to see .
"Internalising misogyny". What a grand phrase. I'll put that under the "rapesplaining" banner as one of the types of mental gymnastics certain people like to use when they just can't accept that another woman can make her own decisions for herself that don't fit with crazy third-wave world view.
Then put a link to the festival website then!
It is in French, but you can still see the stupid, slightly NSFW logo http://www.lecranstdenis.org/dionysiennes/jcd/ (And just in case, the festival was not about Rape and revenge movies. Just one night was. And a few other movies in the festival qualified too, like Female Convict Scorpion: Jailhouse 41. But it was way more tasteful than you would imagine.
Anyhow, you should also put 50 shade of Grey in full instead of the acronym I used that made sense in context but that nobody would be able to decipher outside this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I had not watched their trailer, but it is also NSFW, a bit .
I have hardly ever seen any feminist calling for it to be banned. I do have seen many trying to raise awareness about everything that is wrong about this book. This is very, very different.
There is no problem with enjoying 50soG. As someone who went to a “Rape and revenge” night at a movie festival, and enjoyed it a lot, I would be quite hypocritical to pretend nobody has the moral right to enjoy 50soG. But I certainly do not believe that what is displayed on the screen is good, or normal, or that is should be accepted, or anything. I keep a critical view of what is happening. And if someone was to criticize it, I would listen, and very likely agree.
FSOG should never be accepted but you would watch a "rape and revenge" movie night?
gak, at least I wouldn't get out of bed for either!
Anyway.. the point I was making, with regard to "gaming culture" and anything else, is that I don't think it REALLY exists as a tangible thing, FSOG is a good choice actually, because it is a similar analogy to one I would use for "gaming culture."
There is no such thing, there are hundreds of millions of gamers, and the so called "gaming culture" has a thousand shades of gray, we all fall somewhere in that vast spectrum, from the weird fethers that throw themselves into it and embrace the toxic "hyper masculine" gak embraced by a few, and the toxic "always offended all of the time" gak embraced by another few.
I suspect the vast majority of "gamers" are like me, and play fething games but do very little else with regard to this so called "gamer culture" short of occasional Google a review before making a purchase. Basically I think the OPs premise is a poor one, there is a tiny minority of a few million people that take gaming too seriously, meanwhile the 99% occasionally play games and get on with their lives in a very pleasant and normal manner.
And with that, I am off to play Warcraft 3 for a bit.
mattyrm wrote: FSOG should never be accepted but you would watch a "rape and revenge" movie night?
No. Both should be allowed, and enjoyed by those that are into that kind of things, but in both case the behavior of the rapist/Christian Grey/potentially (depends on the movie) the rape victim should be acknowledged as a bad, immoral behavior that should not be promoted or accepted in real life.
mattyrm wrote: gak, at least I wouldn't get out of bed for either!
Yeah, well, watch this (NSFW, as expected, a bit of nudity and a lot of violence) trailer and tell me you did not change your mind :
There is no such thing, there are hundreds of millions of gamers, and the so called "gaming culture" has a thousand shades of gray, we all fall somewhere in that vast spectrum, from the weird fethers that throw themselves into it and embrace the toxic "hyper masculine" gak embraced by a few, and the toxic "always offended all of the time" gak embraced by another few.
exalted
I think we similar themes everywhere online, people in general much prefer to dish it when it comes to criticism than take it(we're all human afterall) . Add in a dash of anonymity and a pinch of projection and you've got the internet.
I mean look at all the guff about sean penn's joking about his friend's legal status at the oscars. I could hear the "won't someone think of the children" a mile away on that one.
Melissia wrote: Matty, is it really that hard to tell the difference between criticizing something as trashy, low-quality garbage, and saying it should be banned?
Oh come on, these women don't sit and home chatting on the internet about how gak the book is, gak, I do that!
They fething mobilize and hang banners and go nuts about it. I have seen they are signing petitions to have it banned, and it actually is banned in plenty of places. Surely you do concede that fact that the most militant women literally want the thing banning?
Why do you think they make the banners and go marching? To make a pleasant suggestion that we quietly ignore it? They can achieve that my writing a one-star review on Amazon!
Crablezworth wrote: I mean look at all the guff about sean penn's joking about his friend's legal status at the oscars. I could hear the "won't someone think of the children" a mile away on that one.
Oh yeah I read about that today. Its the same old gak over here, I have bonded really well with all the Mexican blokes I work with because other than the gamers I have met over here, I have more in common with them than your average American, they drink more, love football, and talk gak just like I do. I always watch the Premier league on Sunday mornings with three Mexican lads and I will bring this up on the weekend, safe to say that I don't think I know any Mexicans that would be offended, the "always offended" 1% drag us all down to their pathetic cringing level.
From going to comedy clubs over here though I've noticed the difference is tangible, Americans literally never shut up about race and ethnicity, 75% of the comedians whole act is "i am an X and we act like this all of the time" I think America is way more politically correct than the UK is, and way more unlikely to actually achieve colorblindness because nobody ever shuts up about it.
I would mention that everyone at my new job in the states calls me "Politically incorrect Matty" but I think a few people called me that back home as well.
Completely true and my point exactly. Its not that I don't see that some things are indeed a bit misogynistic, Its that I take offense to the level of offense that other people take about things that in the grand scheme of things, seem very fething trivial.
Melissia wrote: Matty, is it really that hard to tell the difference between criticizing something as trashy, low-quality garbage, and saying it should be banned?
When its you or Hybrid...yeah.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I actually do want trashy low-quality garbage to be banned, but that's just me
Won't someone think of the Zeitgeist!
Get a hold of a few copies of 50SOG and have yourself a good old book burning. It'll be therapeutic.
mattyrm wrote: They fething mobilize and hang banners and go nuts about it.
Meanwhile, you have groups like this, formed explicitly by feminists who are fighting against censorship. And that was about 0.05 seconds of google search.
I know you like to self-righteously pretend that feminists are some kind of monolithic group that hates porn and hates men and hates women who aren't feminists, but it's getting fething annoying listening to your ignorant, lop-sided rants no matter how many times I correct you on this.
mattyrm wrote: Its not that I don't see that some things are indeed a bit misogynistic, Its that I take offense to the level of offense that other people take about things that in the grand scheme of things, seem very fething trivial.
If that made any sense at all.
Not sure.
LordofHats wrote: I thought the second line of that post would get that across XD Guess it not
Melissia wrote: Matty, is it really that hard to tell the difference between criticizing something as trashy, low-quality garbage, and saying it should be banned?
Melissia wrote: Matty, is it really that hard to tell the difference between criticizing something as trashy, low-quality garbage, and saying it should be banned?
When its you or Hybrid...yeah.
So you're accusing me, personally, of this?
Fine, I have an ultimatum then:
Either find an example of me advocating the banning of a game, book, or movie for being trashy porn, or back off.
You won't 'find such an example, of course, so just shut your face and admit that you're wrong because you goddamned well know it, and being dishonest about it is incredibly disrespectful.
mattyrm wrote: They fething mobilize and hang banners and go nuts about it.
Meanwhile, you have groups like this, formed explicitly by feminists who are fighting against censorship.
I know you like to self-righteously pretend that feminists are some kind of monolithic group that hates porn and hates men and hates women who aren't feminists, but it's getting fething annoying listening to your ignorant, lop-sided rants no matter how many times I correct you on this.
I don't think they are either lop sided or rants, I certainly think women should have equality so why would I rant about it? Plus I said two posts up that I am pretty sure the vast majority of women (and probably fething men!) would describe themselves as feminists and they don't want to see things like 50SOG banned. Or take offense when a male hero rescues a woman in a fething game or a movie.
Actually I don't know where you got most of that from Mel.. when did I say that "feminists" were a monolithic group that hates men?! I know plenty of pretty militant feminists and they all seem to like men well enough. The ones who want to cut guys balls off seem to be a minority of a minority of a minority from where I sit.
But yeah, I don't think any of that. I simply say (as I have said ten times before) that in my view feminists would be better served by not bothering picking on almost anything that essentially falls under the umbrella of "hobbies" because I think it is pointless and self-defeating, that is all my point has ever been.
feth talking about the little things, like Mario, and stick with the big things, like domestic abuse, because all the little things do is make women and men alike roll their eyes and go "fething feminists" how does that mean I think any of that stuff?
Like I keep saying, the slippery slope argument is bollocks. It always has been, when some republican bloke goes "Oh well if we allow gay marriage the next thing you know people will be marrying goats" we all have a laugh, but you don't see the same thing about feminism? Talking about Mario rescuing Princess in an offended manner doesn't mean "talking about the small issues helps us deal with the big issues" it means "everyone including many women seems to be getting pissed off" Its the slippery slope argument in reverse, and in my opinion it has always been a nonsense.
If you have taken all of that to mean that i think even a small minority of feminists "hate men" then I apologize for not properly stating my position, but don't for a second think I am under the impression that feminists hate men, I certainly don't think you do and you are definitely one of the "pretty militant" feminists who I know.
Melissia wrote: Matty, is it really that hard to tell the difference between criticizing something as trashy, low-quality garbage, and saying it should be banned?
When its you or Hybrid...yeah.
So you're accusing me, personally, of this?
Fine, I have an ultimatum then:
Either find an example of me advocating the banning of a game, book, or movie for being trashy porn, or back off.
You won't 'find such an example, of course, so just shut your face and admit that you're wrong because you goddamned well know it, and being dishonest about it is incredibly disrespectful.
I will not, because I did no such thing.
I meant that judging from your vitriolic contempt and scorn for certain things, games or opinions that offend you, its often hard not to infer that you'd like such things to be banned. Or at least...to not exist.
If you'd simply asked if I was outright accusing you before giving that Ultimatum, I would have happily clarified.
Ok guys keep it down. You're going to get this thread locked.
The point about the opening topic was just having a disconnect of the gamer community as a whole if i gathered it correctly. Don't go forth with this feminist vs gamer-gate crap. This is particularly what the OP was saying they hated.
mattyrm wrote: Or take offense when a male hero rescues a woman in a fething game or a movie.
The problem is not when this happens in one movie, the problem is when it happens in 90% of them, and hardly ever the other way around.
mattyrm wrote: I also never said you had called for banning anything, I think that was the other bloke.
Who, me?
mattyrm wrote: But yeah, I don't think any of that. I simply (as I have said ten times) think that feminists picking on almost anything that essentially falls under the umbrella of "hobbies" is pointless and self-defeating, that is all my point has ever been.
The problem is people getting all over-defensive and, frankly, stupid. Take, for example, the FP. Awesome movie, I loved it, really. But yeah, the portrayal of the (only) female character is downright terrible. No agency, no personality, just a victim that waits passively for the hero to take her as a reward. If that did not happen so often with female love interest of male characters in mainstream movies, that would not be a problem, but it does happen so often. And basically never the other way around. Therefore, I just have to accept that this movie I thoroughly enjoyed (like, a LOT) has also some flaws and some problems. But sadly many people are unable to do that. They are unable to accept that what they love might not be perfect in every way, and that they can still love it while acknowledging the problem. Damn people!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I meant that judging from your vitriolic contempt and scorn for certain things, games or opinions that offend you, its often hard not to infer that you'd like such things to be banned. Or at least...to not exist.
See just above: if you could take the FP, and change it just to fix the problems, that would certainly be way better. But wanting something to not exist and wanting to ban something are very, very, VERY different things.
The problem is not when this happens in one movie, the problem is when it happens in 90% of them, and hardly ever the other way around.
Aye I know mate, but as I said, I think it merely occurs cos back in the day most game buyers were blokes, I dont think many devs did this with violence of forethought against women.
Who, me?
Nah not you.
mattyrm wrote: But yeah, I don't think any of that. I simply (as I have said ten times) think that feminists picking on almost anything that essentially falls under the umbrella of "hobbies" is pointless and self-defeating, that is all my point has ever been.
mattyrm wrote: Aye I know mate, but as I said, I think it merely occurs cos back in the day most game buyers were blokes, I dont think many devs did this with violence of forethought against women.
I agree it was certainly not made deliberately, but unconscious bias can be as harmful as conscious bias. And I disagree with the idea it occurs because most game buyers were men. For reference, I just saw another movie just yesterday evening with a terribly empty, completely hollow “trophy” love interest. It was a comedy called Welcome to the Jungle. Certainly there is no reason for that kind of comedy to target men over women, is there? And in movies directed at women, like, say, 50 shades of Grey, because it is what we were talking about (and since I have not seen it but I expect it to be about as enjoyable as Welcome to the jungle, which means not a lot ), you do not see the same phenomenon of empty characters. Christian Grey, or Edward Cullen, they may not be awesomely written characters but they have personalities, they have plans outside of just being the main characters reward, they have their own agencies…
I know you like to self-righteously pretend that feminists are some kind of monolithic group that hates porn and hates men and hates women who aren't feminists, but it's getting fething annoying listening to your ignorant, lop-sided rants no matter how many times I correct you on this.
Thaks melissia, you just made me piss myself laughing at work. I know you like to pretend that humans are some kind of monolithic group that hates women, but it's getting fething annoying listening to your ignorant , lop-sided rants.
Man i want mattrym back on OT, i miss his level headedness coupled with his political incorrectness. You're my kind of guy * bromance*. The other day i was talking with my Sudanese buddy at work, it went something like this.
He said: "why aren't you listening to me""
Me: "Because you're black and white people don't listen to black people"
and we laughed ourselves stupid. I miss the days when humour out trumped outrage.
Melissia wrote: I know you like to self-righteously pretend that feminists are some kind of monolithic group that hates porn and hates men and hates women who aren't feminists, but it's getting fething annoying listening to your ignorant, lop-sided rants no matter how many times I correct you on this.
lol wot?
I know you like to self-righteously pretend that GamerGaters are some kind of monolithic group that hates women and feminism and hates female gamers, but its getting fething annoying listening to your ignorant, lop-sided rants no matter how many times people correct you on this.
mattyrm wrote: They fething mobilize and hang banners and go nuts about it.
Meanwhile, you have groups like this, formed explicitly by feminists who are fighting against censorship. And that was about 0.05 seconds of google search.
I know you like to self-righteously pretend that feminists are some kind of monolithic group that hates porn and hates men and hates women who aren't feminists, but it's getting fething annoying listening to your ignorant, lop-sided rants no matter how many times I correct you on this.
Or that people who belong to group "X" can still have other motivations within it: we are snowflakes and all that.
There is something to be said about getting upset with what appears to be a disproportionate amount.
How does the Disney song go... "Let it go".
I wish guys had publicly acceptable membership names like "broists" or "guyist" or "manlyist".
It would have been a good support group when I stayed home and took care of my kid for a year and none of the women took it one bit seriously.
When it comes to child rearing from my own experience women have prejudice a mile wide with men.
So I figure the not throwing stones around is the polite thing to do for either party or risk being a hypocrite.
Feminism is just another word for fighting a perceived inequality with men, forgive me if I find the name not very comforting or altruistic and I suppose me demanding a guy group name is being petty.
Bullockist wrote: The other day i was talking with my Sudanese buddy at work, it went something like this.
He said: "why aren't you listening to me""
Me: "Because you're black and white people don't listen to black people"
and we laughed ourselves stupid. I miss the days when humour out trumped outrage.
When were those days? Or maybe you should just keep that kind of joke with people that you know well enough and that knows you well enough that you can be sure everyone will take it well?
Talizvar wrote: I wish guys had publicly acceptable membership names like "broists" or "guyist" or "manlyist".
It would have been a good support group when I stayed home and took care of my kid for a year and none of the women took it one bit seriously.
Most feminist would support you for, you know, breaking gender roles.
mattyrm wrote: But yeah, I don't think any of that. I simply (as I have said ten times) think that feminists picking on almost anything that essentially falls under the umbrella of "hobbies" is pointless and self-defeating, that is all my point has ever been.
Not really, I guess. You seem to think that is a reason to completely stop talking about it. I think it means we have to find way to make people understand without them becoming all defensive and stupid about it.
If the temperature doesn't drop back to normal levels in here immediately, Bad Things are going to happen to various posters & their ability to access Dakka. Everyone involved knows better.
If in even a little doubt, don't direct your posts at another poster.
Talizvar wrote: I wish guys had publicly acceptable membership names like "broists" or "guyist" or "manlyist".
It would have been a good support group when I stayed home and took care of my kid for a year and none of the women took it one bit seriously.
Most feminist would support you for, you know, breaking gender roles.
Yeah, funny that.
Oddly I must not have run into any at the play groups or library kids shops or the "Y", the "isn't it cute he thinks he knows what he is doing" smirk-talk I would get.
The world in my neck of the woods still seems not quite ready for guys breaking gender roles but for women it is perfectly fine.
I hate to say the experience was a bit of loss to my prior opinion of the "fairer" sex.
I think if we acknowledge that either sex has equal capability of good or bad and no inherent leaning we would be closer to a fair equality.
<edit> Shoot! On-topic, I suppose not being fair in ratings or perceived popularity will drive the pretty hate machine that is gaming media or these various celebrities.
mattyrm wrote: Or take offense when a male hero rescues a woman in a fething game or a movie.
The problem is not when this happens in one movie, the problem is when it happens in 90% of them, and hardly ever the other way around.
Though as always, it seems to be easier to complain than actually get up and do something about it.
I, and many other gamers, wouldn't give two gaks about playing as a dude saving a woman or a woman saving a dude, as long as the game is good. If people want games made that has a certain theme/story/"agenda", those people need to stand up, make the game, and set forth the example. As it is right now, about 95% of the feminist movement is basically being "Ideas Guy". Ask any Game Dev what they think of Ideas Guy.
To take Depression Quest into it (Since we are already in GG territory in the thread), NOTHING would have happened if DQ would have been an actually good game. I commend Zoe for what she tried to do (And failed horribly at it, IMO), but Walls of Text are SOOOOOOO 1979. As a watcher of Extra Credits (A very anti GG channel), they say "Do, don't show" when it comes to games. Loneliness the Game actually uses Gameplay to get the point across, whereas DQ was just a Dragon Age Conversation with various dialogues locked because you didn't have enough Charisma.
Having said that, it would be nice if more games took Shovel Knight's approach to the "Damsel in Distress"; (SPOILERS AHEAD):
Spoiler:
In Shovel Knight, you are Shovel Knight trying to save Shield Knight, your partner, a woman, and an implied love interest. When you finally rescue her, she helps you fight the last boss, and it's VERY clear that if she wasn't there you would get slaughtered easily. Add to the fact that Shovel Knight doesn't even kill the last boss, but rather gets knocked out and Shield Knight finishes the fight by herself..... She was in the game for a total of 15 minutes at max, but she was a good example.
THE ONLY THING I DON'T LIKE IS HOW SHE WASN'T VOTED TO BE A PLAYABLE DLC CHARACTER!!!! Mind you, I wanted King Knight before her, but he wasn't voted in either....
Talizvar wrote: Yeah, funny that.
Oddly I must not have run into any at the play groups or library kids shops or the "Y", the "isn't it cute he thinks he knows what he is doing" smirk-talk I would get.
I blame the still-safe 'bumbling dad' stereotype.
Mind you, I was shopping for a story book for my daughter last week and ran into '6 Traditional Tales for Girls.' The sixth story in the book was 'The Ugly Duckling'
I always thought that the ugly duckling was a great story, however it was always explained to me that it wasn't just about appearance with references to "you can't judge a book by it's cover" thanks mum .....i just wish she told me that humans do judge a book by it's cover.
Talizvar, i've worked in a few female dominated workplaces and the smirk comments seem to fly thick and fast. My favourite being "he can't help it, men just aren't that smart" , and these type of comments are why i think that getting on the high horse about men saying comments like this isn't a good idea.
Sad that you didn't have the best experience with being a stay at home dad, i think it would be an amazing experience (if i can manage to do it in the future i will) patience testing , but rewarding. I think those women need to realise that no one when they have their first kid knows what they are doing.
Talizvar wrote: Oddly I must not have run into any at the play groups or library kids shops or the "Y", the "isn't it cute he thinks he knows what he is doing" smirk-talk I would get.
If anyone that gave you that talk title herself a feminist, confront her about it.
Talizvar wrote: The world in my neck of the woods still seems not quite ready for guys breaking gender roles but for women it is perfectly fine.
You just experienced only one side of it.
Talizvar wrote: I think if we acknowledge that either sex has equal capability of good or bad and no inherent leaning we would be closer to a fair equality.
Yeah, no essentialism.
Slarg232 wrote: I, and many other gamers, wouldn't give two gaks about playing as a dude saving a woman or a woman saving a dude, as long as the game is good.
So why getting so upset when other people that care about it ask for change?
Slarg232 wrote: If people want games made that has a certain theme/story/"agenda", those people need to stand up, make the game, and set forth the example.
Okay, what are you talking about? One example of an indie game with a cool female character? I can name plenty. One AAA title? I can name a few. Those games are great and I am pretty happy to play them. Does not solve the problem that such a big proportion of games and movies still have the same problems.
Slarg232 wrote: To take Depression Quest into it (Since we are already in GG territory in the thread)
Bad idea. Let us take Portal instead. Great game, great mechanics, a main character that is a woman, non-sexualized, capable, everything is perfect. Many gamers loved it without even noticing anything about it. Neither did other game designer notice it, apparently. It did not spark any kind of great change in the industry. Game makers are not going to stop using those tropes because one other game maker did not use them in their game. They are going to stop using those tropes if we make them aware about them, and about why we should stop overusing them.
Slarg232 wrote: but Walls of Text are SOOOOOOO 1979. As a watcher of Extra Credits (A very anti GG channel), they say "Do, don't show" when it comes to games.
Well, visual novel as a genre has quite a few adepts. I am very found of Long live the Queen, which is a visual novel-like game. But this is quite off-topic.
Bullockist wrote: Talizvar, i've worked in a few female dominated workplaces and the smirk comments seem to fly thick and fast. My favourite being "he can't help it, men just aren't that smart" , and these type of comments are why i think that getting on the high horse about men saying comments like this isn't a good idea.
Sad that you didn't have the best experience with being a stay at home dad, i think it would be an amazing experience (if i can manage to do it in the future i will) patience testing , but rewarding. I think those women need to realise that no one when they have their first kid knows what they are doing.
Hardest job I had done.
Got to know the little guy real well and happy for it.
There is some magical thinking that being a matron grants kid rearing powers when really experience and practice like with anything makes you good.
It is hard to break a "role" since it is harder to find support groups of like experiences = lonely.
You have to pave your own identity and set your own goals of what of value gets done during the day.
You feel a little... abandoned by the world at first since you do not pigeon hole easily so make people uncomfortable.
No wonder women got uncomfortable and angry entering the Man's world!
Having guys challenging you on your strength.
Got back to workforce and ex-military burly guy asked me "How does it feel to do real work?"
I said "Feels like a nap: triple your work load and get hit in the head with a Nerf bat every 5 minutes, that is the real work I was doing and it had more meaning than this."
He has nothing to say.
Proclaiming a culture feels like advocating misunderstanding: no two people have the same meaning in mind.
Bullockist wrote: The other day i was talking with my Sudanese buddy at work, it went something like this.
He said: "why aren't you listening to me""
Me: "Because you're black and white people don't listen to black people"
and we laughed ourselves stupid. I miss the days when humour out trumped outrage.
When were those days? Or maybe you should just keep that kind of joke with people that you know well enough and that knows you well enough that you can be sure everyone will take it well?
.
Point 1: if i have to explain that post i think you might have to re-read some of the afore mentioned posters posts.
point 2: you missed some hilarity, mattrym used to say some completely not even close to politically correct things. Even I used to read some things and think "bloody hell"
point 3: I thought the whole joke is about white people not treating black people well, but i am sure someone would take it the wrong way. Still I'm not a fan of political correctness and social engineering , I liked the social tone a decade or 2 ago. There was a lot more humour and a lot less outrage. Things have changed for the better in some respects but the ability to not listen to others and just jump to outrage mode seems to have increased. Then again you know this and i just might be mansplaining.
point 2: you missed some hilarity, mattrym used to say some completely not even close to politically correct things. Even I used to read some things and think "bloody hell"
Yes I am not politically correct and yet I'm very centrist and certainly very left-leaning on most issues related to human rights and the treatment of the LGBT community and such, I remain somewhat stunned by by permaban because I never thought I was ever particularly offensive either, but I upset Mel as well so.... I can only presume that ten years in the RM made me consider the consistent use of expletives and very direct speech to be totally acceptable, and I wish to assure everyone I am in no way as much of an arsehole in real life as I inevitably appear on here.
In fact, I seem to get along well with most people and make friends easily.. unless they are just nodding and pretending because I ooze an aura of violence or something.. I am disappointed if that is the case.
Slarg232 wrote: I, and many other gamers, wouldn't give two gaks about playing as a dude saving a woman or a woman saving a dude, as long as the game is good.
So why getting so upset when other people that care about it ask for change?
I am not upset.
Slarg232 wrote: If people want games made that has a certain theme/story/"agenda", those people need to stand up, make the game, and set forth the example.
Okay, what are you talking about? One example of an indie game with a cool female character? I can name plenty. One AAA title? I can name a few. Those games are great and I am pretty happy to play them. Does not solve the problem that such a big proportion of games and movies still have the same problems.
And such a big porportion of games and movies wouldn't have the same problems if more movies were made with that in mind. If 1/100 people who wanted to make a game with a female lead would actually do so, we would see an increase of female leads in games. Funny how that works
Slarg232 wrote: To take Depression Quest into it (Since we are already in GG territory in the thread)
Bad idea. Let us take Portal instead. Great game, great mechanics, a main character that is a woman, non-sexualized, capable, everything is perfect. Many gamers loved it without even noticing anything about it. Neither did other game designer notice it, apparently. It did not spark any kind of great change in the industry. Game makers are not going to stop using those tropes because one other game maker did not use them in their game. They are going to stop using those tropes if we make them aware about them, and about why we should stop overusing them.
Ok, first of all, why is it a bad idea? We are in the general area, we are talking about games, and Depression Quest was a terrible game.
Also, why should people stop using Tropes? I always hear this, but am never given a reason why. If I wanted to make a game where The Savior of the World is off to save the world, but forgot his Lunch so you play as his Mom, tracking him down and whacking people with a bagged lunch, is my game devalued because 20 other, hopefully worse games are Knights rescuing princesses?
What about if I make a game where you play as a woman who is granted the strength, intelligence, and cunning of the Three Furies and you're role in the world is to find wrongs and right them? Is my fantasy world invalidated because There are 50 based upon a world ending scenario that the main character is the only one capable of stopping?
What if I wanted to make a fighting game that involves the main character being a black private Investigator who gets into fights with bouncers, corrupt policemen, and others while he investigates a murder? Is that story less because there are 100 fighting games based around fighting tournaments?
What you are asking for in eliminating tropes is not to increase quality of writing, but to decrease the number of games made. And considering really, really good games have used really, really basic stories stock full of tropes, I'm NOT ok with that action.
Slarg232 wrote: but Walls of Text are SOOOOOOO 1979. As a watcher of Extra Credits (A very anti GG channel), they say "Do, don't show" when it comes to games.
Well, visual novel as a genre has quite a few adepts. I am very found of Long live the Queen, which is a visual novel-like game. But this is quite off-topic.
I'm honestly not a fan, though that's why I don't play them. It's not a matter of they shouldn't exist, just that I know the game just isn't for me.
Why are you so whatever you are about people trying to change this? Apparently because you believe that this is going to decrease the number of games made, which in my opinion is a completely false idea. People do not think “I will make this game. Oh, wait, people dislike it when you use this specific trope. Well, I changed my mind, I am not going to make any game.”. They think “I will make this game. Oh, wait, people dislike it when you use this specific trope. Well, let us see how I can slightly alter the story to avoid it”.
Slarg232 wrote: If 1/100 people who wanted to make a game with a female lead would actually do so, we would see an increase of female leads in games.
Yeah, but not everybody has the time, money, talent and inclination to make games. And also, why do you care about whether it is new, other peoples making games, or the same people as before but after we made them change their mind about this?
Slarg232 wrote: If I wanted to make a game where The Savior of the World is off to save the world, but forgot his Lunch so you play as his Mom, tracking him down and whacking people with a bagged lunch, is my game devalued because 20 other, hopefully worse games are Knights rescuing princesses?
No. But once I have finished your game, I am stuck with the 20 other which are knights rescuing princesses.
Why are you so whatever you are about people trying to change this? Apparently because you believe that this is going to decrease the number of games made, which in my opinion is a completely false idea. People do not think “I will make this game. Oh, wait, people dislike it when you use this specific trope. Well, I changed my mind, I am not going to make any game.”. They think “I will make this game. Oh, wait, people dislike it when you use this specific trope. Well, let us see how I can slightly alter the story to avoid it”.
Slarg232 wrote: If 1/100 people who wanted to make a game with a female lead would actually do so, we would see an increase of female leads in games.
Yeah, but not everybody has the time, money, talent and inclination to make games. And also, why do you care about whether it is new, other peoples making games, or the same people as before but after we made them change their mind about this?
So people don't have the money, talent or the inclination to make games, but still want to have a say in what gets made? That's like being a micro-managing boss that doesn't pay the people he's micromanaging; it's not going to end well.
And if anyone really wanted to get into it, yes you are the paying customer, but if you have the money to buy games you have the money to make one (Considering you can find a free programming software for almost any programming language on the internet). Early games didn't have much in the ways of graphics and there is a large subset of gamers that say Gameplay > Graphics.
Are you asking me why it is a bad idea to shoehorn people on specific roles based on their genders?
I am asking you why having a DiD is a bad idea. Doesn't matter if the In Distresser is a Dude or Damsel. I am not disagreeing with the fact that there could be more women in games, and I'm not disagreeing with the notion that more females are In The Distress than dudes, but "Start Here, Go Here, Save Dude/Damsel" is really all the story any game save Mass Effect needs.
Slarg232 wrote: We are in the general area, we are talking about games, and Depression Quest was a terrible game.
Why do you even consider Depression Quest relevant here? I told you, let us use Portal instead. It was a great game, was it not?
So they should stop using Damsel in Distress but Dude in Distress is ok?
Slarg232 wrote: If I wanted to make a game where The Savior of the World is off to save the world, but forgot his Lunch so you play as his Mom, tracking him down and whacking people with a bagged lunch, is my game devalued because 20 other, hopefully worse games are Knights rescuing princesses?
No. But once I have finished your game, I am stuck with the 20 other which are knights rescuing princesses.
How is that my fault as the Hero Lunch Provider designer? How is that the other designers' fault for going with an easy to write story that allows them to put more focus (And cash) elsewhere? If it wasn't a Damsel, it would be a child. How does that change anything?
Slarg232 wrote: So people don't have the money, talent or the inclination to make games, but still want to have a say in what gets made?
Ahahaha. That is so rich coming from a GamerGater. Yeah, it is called being a consumer. You may have heard about it.
What about you making your own journalism website, with your own articles? Oh feth no, you will not do that. Too hard. But asking others to make AAA titles that have bigger budgets than blockbuster movies? Sure, why not! Who cares for consistency anyway?
Slarg232 wrote: I am asking you why having a DiD is a bad idea. Doesn't matter if the In Distresser is a Dude or Damsel.
What is a bad idea is to have Damsels in distress saved by male heroes much, much, much more often than Dude in Distress saved by female heroes.
Because it is completely irrelevant to the subject of sexist tropes in video games?
Slarg232 wrote: How is that my fault as the Hero Lunch Provider designer?
It is your fault because you could not take a few seconds to try and design something that was not the same old boring overused cliché .
“Hey, how dare you call me out for lazy writing relying on harmful stereotypes? You should thank me for my lazy writing!”
PhantomViper wrote: If you don't wan't to be a part of that "culture", then don't be.
Not one of the things that you mentioned is even remotely mainstream so you won't have to deal with that unless you actually go looking for it. So don't.
Just relax and enjoy playing games for the actual pleasure of playing.
I agree with you on this B.S. is just not worth my time. Misogyny in gaming just doesn't exist in my area and for the media to flame it as a nation/world wide problem is really uncalled for IMHO. Gamer geeks in general seem far more accepting of women than most other groups. So many places I've played have several women playing. As for Anitia Sareesian and other feminists, just like racisim when you continiously rant about something you end up creating even more resentment which works against your goal of equality.
Personally, when I use to play MMO's, I didn't care if I heard a girls voice on the headset, as long as she knew how to play or gave an honest effort if she was new. The only ones i didn't like was the ones who used my game time to find a date which, I thought was kind of pathetic.
The biggest problem for me in gaming culture is specificlly in video games....I hate the way video games companies are romantisizing criminal behavior. My kids will never be allowed to play such games as Grand Theft Auto. Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?
Slarg232 wrote: So people don't have the money, talent or the inclination to make games, but still want to have a say in what gets made?
Ahahaha. That is so rich coming from a GamerGater. Yeah, it is called being a consumer. You may have heard about it.
What about you making your own journalism website, with your own articles? Oh feth no, you will not do that. Too hard. But asking others to make AAA titles that have bigger budgets than blockbuster movies? Sure, why not! Who cares for consistency anyway?
Slarg232 wrote: I am asking you why having a DiD is a bad idea. Doesn't matter if the In Distresser is a Dude or Damsel.
What is a bad idea is to have Damsels in distress saved by male heroes much, much, much more often than Dude in Distress saved by female heroes.
Because it is completely irrelevant to the subject of sexist tropes in video games?
Actually, I was going to make my own journalism website as a side project (Well, youtube channel to be honest) but other Gamergaters were already working on it and it's going to be live soon, so what's the point? It was already being taken care of. It required no input from me. Rather than say "Hey, you guys do this instead" was not what I was saying during GG at it's peak on Twitter; I was saying "Hey guys, let's do it ourselves if we want, because this doesn't seem to be working quite yet".
I also got into a short conversation with Zoe Quinn about how I was not a fan of Depression Quest, but due to suffering from severe depression in the past I highly respected what she tried to do.
Hehe...... You know why Gamergaters were so Onery? It's because they got all those teeth and no tooth brush to brush em with.
If you believe that it's a bad idea, get a group of people together, get a money pot going, find a respectable/trustworthy designer, and say "Hey, make a game, but make it with a female lead. More Samus Aran/Chell than X-blades, please." If even half of the "SJW"s did that at even $1, you would get a cool game with an awesome lead. I mean, you could even hold a contest for women to come up with the concept of the game to be ma-..... Oh, wait a second.......
Just because the current conversation is sexism, doesn't mean the topic at large is; it's about Gaming Culture in general, of which GG was a large part of, of which Depression Quest had no small part of.
Slarg232 wrote: How is that my fault as the Hero Lunch Provider designer?
It is your fault because you could not take a few seconds to try and design something that was not the same old boring overused cliché .
“Hey, how dare you call me out for lazy writing relying on harmful stereotypes? You should thank me for my lazy writing!”
So a middle aged woman beating the GAK out of a bunch of battle hardened knights, giant monsters, and possibly even a God with a brown bag with meatloaf in it is offensive and stereotypical? Aren't most women in games either "The Ancient Crone" or "20-Something Hottie"? I was unaware of Middle Aged Women being stereotypical in any media to be honest. Glad you've opened my eyes
And if you say "It's obviously a middle aged woman in a strictly stereotypical house wife role", I'm going to say two things to you:
A) Shame on you for saying that all middle aged women can't be empowered/kick ass just because they are taking care of the home.
And
B) Shame on you 2 for not even giving her character a chance, and instead just writing her off by her description, not her character.
Slarg232 wrote: Actually, I was going to make my own journalism website as a side project (Well, youtube channel to be honest) but other Gamergaters were already working on it and it's going to be live soon, so what's the point?
So your are not going to do it. Then why ask me to do it? Also why complain about the video game journalists “unethical” behavior if you are going to have your GamerGate-made media? Uh? Or I missed it and you stopped complaining about it now? Ah, who are you kidding, lol.
Slarg232 wrote: I also got into a short conversation with Zoe Quinn about how I was not a fan of Depression Quest, but due to suffering from severe depression in the past I highly respected what she tried to do.
Whatever, man, whatever.
Slarg232 wrote: If you believe that it's a bad idea, get a group of people together, get a money pot going, find a respectable/trustworthy designer, and say "Hey, make a game, but make it with a female lead.
What would that achieve? Well, we will get one more game with a female lead. Yeah. And then we will need to do it again for the next game. And then for the next one. And the next one. And the next one. Or we could just make it clear that this is what we want and wait for designers to actually take that into account when making games.
Beside, it is pretty ridiculous, because you seem to think like only that one aspect of the game mattered. It is not true. It is just one aspect of the game.
Let me give an example: do you know Strife? They have all those gakky designs for basically all their female goddess. But the rest of the game is pretty nice. So, your solution would be to hire a bunch of dev' to make a complete clone of the game, but just with better design for female goddesses. And you will argue “Hey, it is awesome, more games”. That is just idiotic. No, it just mean fragmenting the market with two almost identical games that will therefore double the cost of production, worsen matchmaking (by diving the userbase), …
Slarg232 wrote: Just because the current conversation is sexism, doesn't mean the topic at large is; it's about Gaming Culture in general, of which GG was a large part of, of which Depression Quest had no small part of.
Depression Quest is, was and always will be completely irrelevant.
Slarg232 wrote: So a middle aged woman beating the GAK out of a bunch of battle hardened knights, giant monsters, and possibly even a God with a brown bag with meatloaf in it is offensive and stereotypical?
That is what the game is about? From how you phrased it, you implied it was a game about a knight rescuing a princess .
Slarg232 wrote: Actually, I was going to make my own journalism website as a side project (Well, youtube channel to be honest) but other Gamergaters were already working on it and it's going to be live soon, so what's the point?
So your are not going to do it. Then why ask me to do it? Also why complain about the video game journalists “unethical” behavior if you are going to have your GamerGate-made media? Uh? Or I missed it and you stopped complaining about it now? Ah, who are you kidding, lol.
Slarg232 wrote: I also got into a short conversation with Zoe Quinn about how I was not a fan of Depression Quest, but due to suffering from severe depression in the past I highly respected what she tried to do.
Whatever, man, whatever.
Slarg232 wrote: If you believe that it's a bad idea, get a group of people together, get a money pot going, find a respectable/trustworthy designer, and say "Hey, make a game, but make it with a female lead.
What would that achieve? Well, we will get one more game with a female lead. Yeah. And then we will need to do it again for the next game. And then for the next one. And the next one. And the next one. Or we could just make it clear that this is what we want and wait for designers to actually take that into account when making games.
Beside, it is pretty ridiculous, because you seem to think like only that one aspect of the game mattered. It is not true. It is just one aspect of the game.
Let me give an example: do you know Strife? They have all those gakky designs for basically all their female goddess. But the rest of the game is pretty nice. So, your solution would be to hire a bunch of dev' to make a complete clone of the game, but just with better design for female goddesses. And you will argue “Hey, it is awesome, more games”. That is just idiotic. No, it just mean fragmenting the market with two almost identical games that will therefore double the cost of production, worsen matchmaking (by diving the userbase), …
Slarg232 wrote: Just because the current conversation is sexism, doesn't mean the topic at large is; it's about Gaming Culture in general, of which GG was a large part of, of which Depression Quest had no small part of.
Depression Quest is, was and always will be completely irrelevant.
Slarg232 wrote: So a middle aged woman beating the GAK out of a bunch of battle hardened knights, giant monsters, and possibly even a God with a brown bag with meatloaf in it is offensive and stereotypical?
That is what the game is about? From how you phrased it, you implied it was a game about a knight rescuing a princess .
I think actually you meant “I have never noticed misogyny in gaming in my area”, which is pretty damn different.
You say that "hiring" a dev to make a game with a female character (More like any other game in existance than a Moba, nice try though) would be pointless because you have to do it every single time.
You know, people said Kickstarter was a dumb thing too until a not-so-little man named Tim Schafer decided to try to revive a dead genre that everyone thought there was no money left in, and then proceeded to raise his entire asked funds in a single day. But once big named companies saw that there was a buck to be made in it, more games of the same started to be made; Telltale Games is entirely devoted to Adventure Games, and they weren't exactly doing too hot. Suddenly Adventure was funded, and Telltale's Walking Dead was a huge hit.
If you can't read between the lines, the entire story was a case in point of "If there is money to be had in it, it will be made".
You can't say "Oh hey, I want a game with a female character", because that is a foreign language to Game Pubs as of right now. You need to get people on Kickstarter, have all of them pour $15+ into a fund, and then say "Hey EA/Activision/whomever it may concern, this is how much money you could be making if you made a strong female character lead". The moment you convert your desire into Dollar Signs, Publishers will listen. And if you do that and you can't raise enough money to make greedy Execs cream their pants, you just have to accept that it's not as big of an issue as you want to make it out to be.
See, the thing that I don't get, is that alot of activists (Of any nature) think that merely complaining about doing things will change them. You gotta actually act on it WHILE complaining in order to get an outcome. I saw this "Clean the environment" ad that had this dude just throw a candy wrapper on the ground, followed by people gathering around it saying "How terrible this is", "I can't believe someone would do this", and similar. It wasn't till the end of the ad that some random dude stooped down and grabbed it to throw it away. Do, don't complain.
Also, my game concept is simple: Hero of Light goes out to save the planet, his mother (You) realizes he "forgot" his meatloaf lunch and tracks him down to ensure he's eating a healthy meal while fighting monsters. Your main weapon is the hard as a god damn rock meatloaf in a bag.
The biggest problem for me in gaming culture is specificlly in video games....I hate the way video games companies are romantisizing criminal behavior. My kids will never be allowed to play such games as Grand Theft Auto. Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?
You can raise you kids how ever you like, but you should blame monopoly for the cause of greed and consumerism in our society, and D&D for the romanticizing criminal behavior, and might as well blame the TV shows while you're at it.
The reality is with the rise of violent video games, violent crimes have decreased. It's been well studied, violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Most people are smart enough to know games are games and in no way reality. Acceptable behavior in the real world, has nothing to do with what games people play and how they play them.
Slarg232 wrote: You say that "hiring" a dev to make a game with a female character (More like any other game in existance than a Moba, nice try though) would be pointless because you have to do it every single time.
You know, people said Kickstarter was a dumb thing too until a not-so-little man named Tim Schafer decided to try to revive a dead genre that everyone thought there was no money left in, and then proceeded to raise his entire asked funds in a single day. But once big named companies saw that there was a buck to be made in it, more games of the same started to be made; Telltale Games is entirely devoted to Adventure Games, and they weren't exactly doing too hot. Suddenly Adventure was funded, and Telltale's Walking Dead was a huge hit.
Yeah. But when Portal became super-popular and super-successful, did it start a flurry of games with female main characters? No.
We can try to explain this. But we cannot deny it. So, no, having one successful game with a female character is not enough. It did not work with Beyond good and evil, it did not work with Portal, …
Slarg232 wrote: You need to get people on Kickstarter, have all of them pour $15+ into a fund, and then say "Hey EA/Activision/whomever it may concern, this is how much money you could be making if you made a strong female character lead".
Uh, awesome idea. And then, what if the game sucks? I would rather use those 15+$ to buy one of the already existing game with good female characters, and be vocal about the fact I like their characters. Actually, having some journalists mention it sure helps too, but it tend to send GamerGater into painful fits of blind rage where they complain about how unethical this is .
Slarg232 wrote: And if you do that and you can't raise enough money to make greedy Execs cream their pants, you just have to accept that it's not as big of an issue as you want to make it out to be.
Obviously there are lots of issues that are not that big, because people have not yet raised enough money to fight them . Cancer and AIDS are not big deal, we have not yet raised enough money to cure them. The israelo-palestinian conflict is no big deal. World hunger and poverty are obviously no big deals!
Slarg232 wrote: See, the thing that I don't get, is that alot of activists (Of any nature) think that merely complaining about doing things will change them. You gotta actually act on it WHILE complaining in order to get an outcome.
Uh uh, GamerGater speaking. So, should I send emails to the game developers? Or maybe start a hashtag to tweet about it?
Slarg232 wrote: Also, my game concept is simple: Hero of Light goes out to save the planet, his mother (You) realizes he "forgot" his meatloaf lunch and tracks him down to ensure he's eating a healthy meal while fighting monsters. Your main weapon is the hard as a god damn rock meatloaf in a bag.
nomotog wrote: There are gamergate gaming "journalism websites". I just wouldn't recommended reading most of them.
Are they funny in the kind of way that sad pathetic things are funny? Or are the just sad and pathetic?
More creepy. There is one I stumbled across that is just disturbing to read. It makes no attempt to gussy up what it says, so you see it all in raw form and gaw. (I'll PM the link if you want.)
sirlynchmob wrote: It's been well studied, violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Most people are smart enough to know games are games and in no way reality. Acceptable behavior in the real world, has nothing to do with what games people play and how they play them.
Actually, it is not as simple as that. People do not mimic the comportment from games in real life, but that does not mean games do not influence people. To take an example with TV-show instead of games, the frequent torture scene from 24, and the way they are portrayed (i.e. as an efficient way to save lives, with barely any focus on the consequences for the person being tortured, or portrayal of innocents being mistaken for guilty and therefore tortured) is going to have some influence on how much society as a whole is willing to allow the government to get away with torture. It would not make them torture themselves, but it changes their perception of torture.
nomotog wrote: There are gamergate gaming "journalism websites". I just wouldn't recommended reading most of them.
Are they funny in the kind of way that sad pathetic things are funny? Or are the just sad and pathetic?
More creepy. There is one I stumbled across that is just disturbing to read. It makes no attempt to gussy up what it says, so you see it all in raw form and gaw. (I'll PM the link if you want.)
Nahhhh. I'll read hilariously stupid, but creepy is just creepy
sirlynchmob wrote: It's been well studied, violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Most people are smart enough to know games are games and in no way reality. Acceptable behavior in the real world, has nothing to do with what games people play and how they play them.
Actually, it is not as simple as that. People do not mimic the comportment from games in real life, but that does not mean games do not influence people. To take an example with TV-show instead of games, the frequent torture scene from 24, and the way they are portrayed (i.e. as an efficient way to save lives, with barely any focus on the consequences for the person being tortured, or portrayal of innocents being mistaken for guilty and therefore tortured) is going to have some influence on how much society as a whole is willing to allow the government to get away with torture. It would not make them torture themselves, but it changes their perception of torture.
You are right that it's not that simple, but that notion has been pushed by different groups over the years, and it's completely false. There has been many studies and even a few congressional hearings, and this is the reality: violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
sirlynchmob wrote: There has been many studies and even a few congressional hearings, and this is the reality: violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.
sirlynchmob wrote: It's been well studied, violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Most people are smart enough to know games are games and in no way reality. Acceptable behavior in the real world, has nothing to do with what games people play and how they play them.
Actually, it is not as simple as that. People do not mimic the comportment from games in real life, but that does not mean games do not influence people. To take an example with TV-show instead of games, the frequent torture scene from 24, and the way they are portrayed (i.e. as an efficient way to save lives, with barely any focus on the consequences for the person being tortured, or portrayal of innocents being mistaken for guilty and therefore tortured) is going to have some influence on how much society as a whole is willing to allow the government to get away with torture. It would not make them torture themselves, but it changes their perception of torture.
Speak for yourself. I loved 24, but I want those people in the American and British Governments and security communities prosecuted for their involvement in torture and "extraordinary rendition". It's a disgrace that Guantanamo Bay is still open, with many prisoners who've never received a trial. It's a disgrace that the previous British Labour Government colluded with America in kidnapping and "renditioning" people (including some British citizens), sending them abroad to be tortured, and allowing the CIA to operate extraordinary renditioning flights out of Britain.
I love war films, but in the real world I'm very anti war in general.
I can separate fact from fiction and I would hope that the average person can too.
Games, movies and books are not all that different at least in some plot or story is concerned.
Games at least have interaction so the level of engagement is that much more (though choose your own adventure books were funny).
What we tend to get critical of is how much the game allows for some more controversial decisions of the gamer.
We are not a passive consumer, we expect more freedom, more immersion, more self expression within the game including indulging our darker nature.
It is how far the game designer allows things to progress before drawing a line in the sand that seems to get all that controversy where critics say "It is in the game!" where the developer could say "Yes, but you did not have to go there you sick puppy."
The gamer culture keeps seeming like spoiled kids demanding more while more parental types are calling for limits.
sirlynchmob wrote: There has been many studies and even a few congressional hearings, and this is the reality: violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.
Any proof of it? Hint: No. it's the same argument for violence & sexism, you can't say yes to one, and no to the other.
But I'll play along, is it a positive perception or a negative one? I'll grant that almost all tropes are used by lazy writters, but as everything has been done, coming up with anything new is not likely to happen. Yet if some great new story does come out, it will be heavily copied until it is reduced to yet another trope.
Yes the tropes exist, but that is all we can claim for sure. it's effects are up for debate, but if it's across all different kinds of media, why is it just being brought up in one? Shouldn't we start with the beginnings of the trope and call for more female role models in the bible, poems, and books? Let's call for some rewrites, and petition for a "passion of the christ" remake with a black female as jesus. If people were outraged over the human torch, imagine the outrage over this one Let's rewrite "tom sawyer" with a female lead. Let's rewrite "the raven" with a female lead. Let's put male models on the cover of cosmo. Surely if it's across all media you should start at the biggest money makers, with more female leads in movies, it would directly equate to more female leads in games based off those movies. Why start at the bottom?
how is the "damsel in distress" trope any worse than say "Blaming bad behavior on bad parenting " trope. surely "The chosen one" would be a better area of focus. If the "damsel in distress" trope is sexists, than surely "Magical Negroes and Noble Savages" trope is racists. And as active as the struggle against racism has been in the US since desegregating the schools, it has never been brought up.
Tropes are tropes, there's nothing inherently good or bad about them. They're like a gun, it's just a tool, guns don't kill people, and tropes don't make people sexist.
sirlynchmob wrote: it's the same argument for violence & sexism, you can't say yes to one, and no to the other.
No it is not the same argument.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: People do not mimic the comportment from games in real life, but that does not mean games do not influence people. […] It would not make them torture themselves, but it changes their perception of torture.
Saying violent video game makes people violent is saying people mimic the game in real life. Saying sexist games make people sexists is saying games influence people's opinions.
sirlynchmob wrote: I'll grant that almost all tropes are used by lazy writters, but as everything has been done, coming up with anything new is not likely to happen. Yet if some great new story does come out, it will be heavily copied until it is reduced to yet another trope.
Again, I said nothing about avoiding all tropes.
sirlynchmob wrote: Yes the tropes exist, but that is all we can claim for sure. it's effects are up for debate, but if it's across all different kinds of media, why is it just being brought up in one?
Have you heard of all the video Anita Sarkeesian made on movies?
sirlynchmob wrote: Shouldn't we start with the beginnings of the trope and call for more female role models in the bible, poems, and books?
Nobody is calling for rewrites, just for a change in the new stuff. And yeah, in books and movies too.
sirlynchmob wrote: surely "The chosen one" would be a better area of focus.
Why?
sirlynchmob wrote: If the "damsel in distress" trope is sexists, than surely "Magical Negroes and Noble Savages" trope is racists. And as active as the struggle against racism has been in the US since desegregating the schools, it has never been brought up.
Have you missed the whole “Black characters die first” being a trope, and then being criticized and parodied to death? Are you voluntarily blinding yourself to all the criticism movies receive for racism, whitewashing and all that?
sirlynchmob wrote: Tropes are tropes, there's nothing inherently good or bad about them.
Yeah. Nothing bad about tropes like “Jews are greedy bastard that control the media and the finance”. It is totally fine and nobody should object to that. Any other inane opinion you have to add? Tropes are tropes. They can be good or bad. They can be used right or wrong.
sirlynchmob wrote: They're like a gun, it's just a tool, guns don't kill people, and tropes don't make people sexist.
Guns kill peoples. But let me ask you, then. What makes people sexists? What make people racists?
sirlynchmob wrote: There has been many studies and even a few congressional hearings, and this is the reality: violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.
Ok, no. If Violent Video Games do not make people violent, then Sexist Video Games do not make people sexist. You can't have it both ways there.
Also, as for the comment about AIDS and HIV not being solved because we haven't thrown enough money at it, I was unaware that curing a disease rooted in multiple facets of the human condition is the same as programming a couple of extra pixels on a character's chest. One of these problems is a question of "Will it Make Money", the other is "Will this get rid of one thing without fething things up worse".
As for my game, No. I have not done it for several reasons; one of which is as much as I love playing games I want to have my life be doing something else rather than making games and going home to play games. Another being I would much rather take my coding skills and make GIANT ROBOTS (Chicks dig giant robots, you dig giant robots, we dig giant robots..... Nice.....) when I get my 3D Printer.
sirlynchmob wrote: There has been many studies and even a few congressional hearings, and this is the reality: violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.
Eh...no. It's illogical to assume such a thing...for the exact same reason you stated before.
Slarg232 wrote: Ok, no. If Violent Video Games do not make people violent, then Sexist Video Games do not make people sexist. You can't have it both ways there.
I can. And repeating that I cannot is not going to change that. If you have nothing to answer to my explanations of why, then just shut up and do not answer.
And you know what? I am going to go even further. Adolf Hitler was a male antisemitic politician that pushed a lot of people toward becoming more antisemitic, but none of them toward becoming more male. “But”, I hear you cry in an anguished voice, “you cannot have it both way. If male politicians do not make people male, then antisemitic politicians cannot possibly make people antisemitic!”.
Uh uh.
Slarg232 wrote: As for my game, No. I have not done it for several reasons; one of which is as much as I love playing games I want to have my life be doing something else rather than making games and going home to play games. Another being I would much rather take my coding skills and make GIANT ROBOTS (Chicks dig giant robots, you dig giant robots, we dig giant robots..... Nice.....) when I get my 3D Printer.
So, stop being hypocritical and asking me to do my own games.
Guns kill peoples. But let me ask you, then. What makes people sexists? What make people racists?
speaking of insanity, Guns kill people? LOL, so the guns should be put in jail and not the person using it.
In general how kids are raised by their parents and being raised christian has been shown to be a factor in racism and sexism. Just like what makes kids grow up to abuse their kids? They were raised that way. They were abused, the cycle of violence continues and now they abuse.
I'm glad you agree with me:
They can be good or bad. They can be used right or wrong.
how to games influence our opinions? again, it's been studied, the answer is "none at all" but again, is it a positive influence or a negative one?
So you'd claim
Nothing bad about tropes like “Jews are greedy bastard that control the media and the finance”
causes antisemitism? Another claim without a shred of proof.
What kind of statement do you want me to prove? I mean, do you want me to prove that Hitler pushed people toward antisemitism? Or do you want me to prove he did not push people toward becoming male?
If you want to state that there's direct correlation between two things, in this very case sexism and video games, then you have to prove it. Especially when there's direct counter-evidence strongly supporting the opposite.
sirlynchmob wrote: speaking of insanity, Guns kill people? LOL, so the guns should be put in jail and not the person using it.
What kind of logic is that?
Car accidents kill people, diseases kill people, earthquakes kill people and sharks sometime kill people. We put none of them in prison. And yeah, the person that fired the gun also killed the person, and this one we are likely going to put in prison.
sirlynchmob wrote: In general how kids are raised by their parents and being raised christian has been shown to be a factor in racism and sexism.
And how does parents influence their kids, hum? Magical fairies? Brain operations? Or by telling them stuff? Which is exactly what games will do?
sirlynchmob wrote: how to games influence our opinions? again, it's been studied, the answer is "none at all"
Nah. That is just what you like to pretend. A game is a medium. They can convey ideas. You are convinced by ideas.
Nothing bad about tropes like “Jews are greedy bastard that control the media and the finance”
causes antisemitism? Another claim without a shred of proof.
Yeah, I claim that constant repetition of antisemitic ideas in the media will cause antisemitism. As for proof, well, history. Ask Sigvatr about his country in the thirties.
One difference between violence and sexism is reinforcement out of the game. Like a game might encourage you to shot and stab in the game, but when you get out of the game your put back into a culture that universally tells you don't shoot don't stab. With something like oggleing your not dropped back into a culture that says don't oggle. (We just say don't get caught.)
Sigvatr wrote: If you want to state that there's direct correlation between two things, in this very case sexism and video games, then you have to prove it.
The correlation I draw was between sexist video games, and sexist media in general, with sexism. And… yeah, the correlation is right there in the name .
The correlation I draw was between sexist video games, and sexist media in general, with sexism. And… yeah, the correlation is right there in the name .
sirlynchmob wrote: speaking of insanity, Guns kill people? LOL, so the guns should be put in jail and not the person using it.
What kind of logic is that?
Car accidents kill people, diseases kill people, earthquakes kill people and sharks sometime kill people. We put none of them in prison. And yeah, the person that fired the gun also killed the person, and this one we are likely going to put in prison.
So what you're saying is that Cars kill people, right?
Also, with my game, I'm not telling other people to do it. I am only saying that that was my idea.
I, someone who has no interest in making a game with a woman character in it solely because of inequality, actually took the time to sit down and come up with an idea in which it would happen, I came up with mechanics for the game, came up with stories, bosses, and everything I needed to put the game in motion. I just chose not to because I want my life to mean more than just video games.
What you need to take from that is someone who doesn't care about the issues did more work to rectify said issues than someone sitting on their ass whining that other people won't pander to their needs.
Car tends to kill people when they happen to run them over, yes . Or maybe you do believe that those people just die at the same moment by pure luck?
Slarg232 wrote: What you need to take from that is someone who doesn't care about the issues did more work to rectify said issues than someone sitting on their ass whining that other people won't pander to their needs.
Uh uh uh.
You should have invested that time to create moar ethics instead. You need moar ethics in your video game journalism.
Let us get serious. Your “work” is just, pure and simple, useless. You just had your little fun. How you even dare call this work is beyond me. And it certainly was not made to fix an issue you pretend do not even exist.
Yeah, I claim that constant repetition of antisemitic ideas in the media will cause antisemitism. As for proof, well, history. Ask Sigvatr about his country in the thirties.
LOL, ok so what media influenced hitler? What video games did he play?
And how does parents influence their kids, hum? Magical fairies? Brain operations? Or by telling them stuff? Which is exactly what games will do?
Kids see how parents act, if the parent is a racists, the kid will pick up on it and be a racists. They never once have to tell the kid specifically to be racists. Kids of alcoholics become alcoholics. kids of drug users, become drug users. no amount of video games, tv, or stories will change this.
How do kids treat their spouse? the same way they observed their mom & dad being treated. Boys will seek out someone who treats them they way their father was treated. Same with girls.
Ending a trope in video games or even all media, will have any net impact on society nor reduce sexism.
We can already see the decline of sexism, look at how women were treated in the work place 60 years ago, and how they are treated now. Sexism is on the decline even with a rise of the damsel in distress trope being so pervasive. since you're so fond of anecdotal evidence, Look how muslims in the middle east treat their women, I bet it's because they don't play enough video games. One could even claim that the distress trope being so pervasive is the reason for the decline of sexism.
I do not know. You may think this is stupid, but yeah, learning what kind of book he read, who he talked to and how he got his idea is certainly a question worth asking. But anyhow, what I was referring to is how he used the media to influence others, not the other way around. For starter, he used a book. He also had those huge speeches.
sirlynchmob wrote: Kids see how parents act, if the parent is a racists, the kid will pick up on it and be a racists.
So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?
sirlynchmob wrote: We can already see the decline of sexism, look at how women were treated in the work place 60 years ago, and how they are treated now.
And look at what made the change happen, too.
sirlynchmob wrote: One could even claim that the distress trope being so pervasive is the reason for the decline of sexism.
I do not know. You may think this is stupid, but yeah, learning what kind of book he read, who he talked to and how he got his idea is certainly a question worth asking. But anyhow, what I was referring to is how he used the media to influence others, not the other way around. For starter, he used a book. He also had those huge speeches.
sirlynchmob wrote: Kids see how parents act, if the parent is a racists, the kid will pick up on it and be a racists.
So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?
sirlynchmob wrote: We can already see the decline of sexism, look at how women were treated in the work place 60 years ago, and how they are treated now.
And look at what made the change happen, too.
sirlynchmob wrote: One could even claim that the distress trope being so pervasive is the reason for the decline of sexism.
One would be pretty damn idiotic, then.
Give me proof that sexism in games equates to actual sexism, you know, like with violence.
So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?
You'll understand this when you have kids. other people? no, always traced back to the parents, yes. Your kids will turn out to be just like you.
Magic link? now who's not dealing with reality, that's twice you've mentioned magic when raising kids.
sirlynchmob wrote: One could even claim that the distress trope being so pervasive is the reason for the decline of sexism.
One would be pretty damn idiotic, then.
psst, it's the same argument you are making, same logic, same proof. I'm glad you're realizing how it looks.
I do not know. You may think this is stupid, but yeah, learning what kind of book he read, who he talked to and how he got his idea is certainly a question worth asking. But anyhow, what I was referring to is how he used the media to influence others, not the other way around. For starter, he used a book. He also had those huge speeches.
sirlynchmob wrote: Kids see how parents act, if the parent is a racists, the kid will pick up on it and be a racists.
So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?
sirlynchmob wrote: We can already see the decline of sexism, look at how women were treated in the work place 60 years ago, and how they are treated now.
And look at what made the change happen, too.
sirlynchmob wrote: One could even claim that the distress trope being so pervasive is the reason for the decline of sexism.
One would be pretty damn idiotic, then.
Give me proof that sexism in games equates to actual sexism, you know, like with violence.
Yep. Played tons of COD, Halo, GTA, and have yet to grab an M-16, assault a hooker so I can get back my investment, or rob liquor stores. I treat my prostitutes with respect
Edit: before you go off about sexism, I am all for a woman president (who is competent, no damn Sarah Palin), am happily married to a woman I respect, and have a daughter.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Car tends to kill people when they happen to run them over, yes . Or maybe you do believe that those people just die at the same moment by pure luck?
Slarg232 wrote: What you need to take from that is someone who doesn't care about the issues did more work to rectify said issues than someone sitting on their ass whining that other people won't pander to their needs.
Uh uh uh.
You should have invested that time to create moar ethics instead. You need moar ethics in your video game journalism.
Let us get serious. Your “work” is just, pure and simple, useless. You just had your little fun. How you even dare call this work is beyond me. And it certainly was not made to fix an issue you pretend do not even exist.
A) You make it sound as though video game journalism doesn't matter, which means by extension you don't think video games matter. So why are you arguing that they cause sexism again?
B) If Video Games cause Sexism, what games have they been playing for the past 2,000 years?
Are you saying there is no correlation between sexist video game and sexism?
Correct. Until there is proof that it does, it doesn't. Period. Assuming the opposite is highly illogical as you'd assume stuff without proof. Thinking that playing video games with sexist content causes sexist behavior puts one in the same corner as people thinking that violent video games cause violent behavior and frequently masturbating causes AIDS.
I'd have to say that if games don't induce more violent behavior then they don't induce sexism. The are both ideas of behavior and social construct. Hell the damsel trope could even be looked at (if it influences behavior that is) as actually changing peoples ideas towards women that they are valuable , far more so than men- since there isn't a youth in distress trope. But then again i might be slightly facetious.
I'd agree you cannot have it both ways. If games influence behaviour then games influence behaviour.
I'd argue that what has reduced sexism in society was the forced induction of women into the workforce in ww1 and ww2. You have 2 generations of women proving that they could work as well as men thereby imparting that idea to their children. It certainly isn't "media commentators" giving lectures.
sirlynchmob wrote: speaking of insanity, Guns kill people? LOL, so the guns should be put in jail and not the person using it.
What kind of logic is that?
Car accidents kill people, diseases kill people, earthquakes kill people and sharks sometime kill people. We put none of them in prison. And yeah, the person that fired the gun also killed the person, and this one we are likely going to put in prison.
Technically, The car can get impounded, The Sharks if caught put down, and the gun usually gets perma locked into evidence if not straight confiscated no?
The biggest problem for me in gaming culture is specificlly in video games....I hate the way video games companies are romantisizing criminal behavior. My kids will never be allowed to play such games as Grand Theft Auto. Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?
You can raise you kids how ever you like, but you should blame monopoly for the cause of greed and consumerism in our society, and D&D for the romanticizing criminal behavior, and might as well blame the TV shows while you're at it.
The reality is with the rise of violent video games, violent crimes have decreased. It's been well studied, violent video games do not make people violent. Sexist games don't make people sexist.
Most people are smart enough to know games are games and in no way reality. Acceptable behavior in the real world, has nothing to do with what games people play and how they play them.
Humm I did walk in on this one. While I did make it seem like I think that videos games make people violent, I really don't.
Do I you think a game that allows you to shotgun a man in the face really has a place in society? No
But if your making a argument that all violence is violence no matter how you look at it. And it's just a video game it doesn't mean anything.
Would it mean anything if we lowered the bar even more and allowed more sickening things? I can list at least 10 heinous crimes that speak otherwise. Probably get me flamed here even though I would not condone any of them.
But I guess shooting people in the face, curbing them, and stabbing them 20 times is the same as slaying a dragon or killing a Necromancer before he unleashes a contagion.
I guess I don't know the difference between healthy outlet and sick behavior
Well why would you? Those games are rated for adults.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?
Not to jump into the realm of "correlation is not causation", but you're aware of the graphs that show crime rates going down whilst gaming sales go up, yes? Don't blame games for the fall of society. That's daft.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?
Not to jump into the realm of "correlation is not causation", but you're aware of the graphs that show crime rates going down whilst gaming sales go up, yes? Don't blame games for the fall of society. That's daft.
Don't forget how global warming stops piracy. Coincidence!? Yes. Yes it is.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.
PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IT.
I don't have to prove it, Anita already did and she's a qualified media commentator *nods smugly* *stops nodding, looks self righteous* MISOGYNIST! I'm still glad hybrid has fully taken onboard the damsel in distress trope as he seems to defend/protect women world wide, he's like Super Mario in Tropeland.
I thought pirates kept the world temperature down, we should thank the somalis and the dudes in the malacca straights for saving the world, nice people those malaccas!
PhantomViper wrote: If you don't wan't to be a part of that "culture", then don't be.
Not one of the things that you mentioned is even remotely mainstream so you won't have to deal with that unless you actually go looking for it. So don't.
Just relax and enjoy playing games for the actual pleasure of playing.
I agree with you on this B.S. is just not worth my time. Misogyny in gaming just doesn't exist in my area and for the media to flame it as a nation/world wide problem is really uncalled for IMHO. Gamer geeks in general seem far more accepting of women than most other groups. So many places I've played have several women playing. As for Anitia Sareesian and other feminists, just like racisim when you continiously rant about something you end up creating even more resentment which works against your goal of equality.
Personally, when I use to play MMO's, I didn't care if I heard a girls voice on the headset, as long as she knew how to play or gave an honest effort if she was new. The only ones i didn't like was the ones who used my game time to find a date which, I thought was kind of pathetic.
The biggest problem for me in gaming culture is specificlly in video games....I hate the way video games companies are romantisizing criminal behavior. My kids will never be allowed to play such games as Grand Theft Auto. Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?
Because doing such acts in a videogame is fun? Especially if you're really good at GTA, and thus don't get mowed down instantly by the Police, going on a rampage is half the fun of the game. Although I prefer Just Cause 2 as there's more EXPLOSIONS and the grappling mechanic is ludicrously fun.
But don't tell me that getting an RPG and wading through a firefight slaughtering anything that creeps or crawls in GTA or games like it isn't fun, made all the sweeter when a passing civilian vehicle suddenly ends your spree out of the blue for delicious irony. Plus it's a good way to get some anger out.
Rune Stonegrinder wrote: Are you kidding me drug dealing, curbbing, shotguns to people faces....WTF. No wonder our society is in a downward spirial. What's next as acceptiable behavior?
Not to jump into the realm of "correlation is not causation", but you're aware of the graphs that show crime rates going down whilst gaming sales go up, yes? Don't blame games for the fall of society. That's daft.
Never said it was the fall of society, I said it tells something about or society. A penny in the bucket of crap. small part of a system gone wrong.
Come on lads, the old "games make kids do bad things" has been proven wrong countless times, it was parroted primarily by stuffy American Conservatives in the 80s, but has been proved wrong time and time again, there is absolutely no evidence that violent games make people violent, so why would misogynistic games make people misogynist?
My 11 year old nephew laughed hysterically when I showed him a Deux Ex video of the bloke double punching two prostitutes, but he would never hit a woman in real life because he has been raised with manners and moral fiber, I have to agree with Bullockist and the rest on this score.
mattyrm wrote: Come on lads, the old "games make kids do bad things" has been proven wrong countless times, it was parroted primarily by stuffy American Conservatives in the 80s, but has been proved wrong time and time again, there is absolutely no evidence that violent games make people violent, so why would misogynistic games make people misogynist?
Who needs facts when you can have OPINIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON?
Talizvar wrote: You know, it seems like a good idea that the label "gamers" should be dead.
Since gamergate or even well before, misogyny will always be attached to it.
I am tired of trying to have decent discussion on the future direction of game software and then having some latent or active prejudice towards women pointed out as preventing it's proper development. Like with anything in life, yes, it can be there, also it can also be done without as well, spend your money appropriately.
This garbage keeps making good people feel like apologizing for their gender, which is also wrong.
What is that rule? If a thread goes on long enough it will talk about Nazis?
I suppose any on gaming will mention misogyny.
Kill the label, it is irredeemable now.
hahahhahahhahahah. Kill the label? Irredeemable? All this bs will be forgotten in a year or two. It's just the latest internet drama that will be a former thing soon enough. Like Anonymous taking on Scientology until they got bored/distracted, Planking and the Harlem Shake. While we're still far from "everyone is a gamer", gamers aren't going anywhere. Our gak is here to stay and has climbed into the mainstream with BBT, Marvel movies and all of the rest of it. Pretty much most to all "normal" people haven't heard of "gamergate" nor do they care.
I've been a gamer for almost my entire life. Yet I don't give two feths about #gamergate or SJWs (both sides are filled with Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n But then again, what do you expect from a #hashtagwar? Sexism in gaming is alive and well, and I'd like to see less of it. Death threats are for feth wits either way. Anita's stuff (pre-"gamergate" anyway) is skewed and has a few too many half-truths and twists of the truth sprinkled throughout it to take 100% seriously but I still find it interesting, and she does make good and valid points as well. Bringing to light gakky "game journalism" is a good thing, though my most trusted source these days is Forbes - yeah, the financial paper/site. Not beholden to the producers of the product. Along with sidetracks into people like Sterling, Joe, Yahtzee, etc. Still, I'll read and watch an IGN or Gamespot review, and oddly, they (generally) seem a little less paid off and filled with bs lately. (See reviews for The Order).
You can't say "Oh hey, I want a game with a female character", because that is a foreign language to Game Pubs as of right now. You need to get people on Kickstarter, have all of them pour $15+ into a fund, and then say "Hey EA/Activision/whomever it may concern, this is how much money you could be making if you made a strong female character lead". The moment you convert your desire into Dollar Signs, Publishers will listen. And if you do that and you can't raise enough money to make greedy Execs cream their pants, you just have to accept that it's not as big of an issue as you want to make it out to be.
Hopefully these stories and the reaction will see a change for more games going forward, for both protagonists as well as co-op characters. Ajay Ghale is pretty much a personality-vaccum empty vessel anyway, so a female model and a few multi-recorded lines "Ajay, my boy!" vs "Ajay, my girl!" shouldn't be too much of a stretch - obviously with a more gender-neutral name.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Note to Reds8n/mods: There was no intentional attempt to bypass the language filter - I don't bother with crap like that. My choice of words was obviously simply not picked up by it.
ref:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/548580.page#6555900 ...and I found another common profanity I used that wasn't picked up. Broke the word into two and now it works.
Azazelx wrote: While we're still far from "everyone is a gamer", gamers aren't going anywhere. Our gak is here to stay and has climbed into the mainstream with BBT, Marvel movies and all of the rest of it. Pretty much most to all "normal" people haven't heard of "gamergate" nor do they care.
The thing is, to profess to be a "gamer" is evolving differently than what it used to mean.
As you pointed out "normal" people play many games, it is not fringe recreation like it used to be, having a "culture" is becoming more a misnomer.
I've been a gamer for almost my entire life. Yet I don't give two feths about #gamergate or SJWs (both sides are filled with Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n But then again, what do you expect from a #hashtagwar?
So again, as you point out so well, you are not emotionally attached to the label, you game and do not identify as a "gamer" so much of the drivel flung about has little meaning to you.
Sexism in gaming is alive and well, and I'd like to see less of it. Death threats are for feth wits either way.
As long as humans are involved this stuff happens and should not surprise...
Anita's stuff (pre-"gamergate" anyway) is skewed and has a few too many half-truths and twists of the truth sprinkled throughout it to take 100% seriously but I still find it interesting, and she does make good and valid points as well.
What makes what she says dangerous is people who are involved in determining policy would take much of what she says at face value and maybe less salt than you, which is what makes her rather one-sided views problematic.
This is why she is so vehemently attacked on many points because it is not balanced, it demands a critique which BTW she typically closes all means of discussion or feedback.
Bringing to light gakky "game journalism" is a good thing, though my most trusted source these days is Forbes - yeah, the financial paper/site. Not beholden to the producers of the product. Along with sidetracks into people like Sterling, Joe, Yahtzee, etc. Still, I'll read and watch an IGN or Gamespot review, and oddly, they (generally) seem a little less paid off and filled with bs lately. (See reviews for The Order).
This is the thing as well, the label "journalist" is being attacked where many sources do not behave like they are conveying news impartially, more like an extension of advertising for gaming companies.
A name for a type or group of people conveys a certain meaning with all the benefits and prejudices that entails.
If we as "gamers" make fun of the publications saying they are not behaving like proper "journalists" then it is funny how they turn around and say "Oh yeah? Well gamers are dead! You guys do not exist, what you say then is unimportant, we are publishing for the general public this is not a publication catering to a dead fan base."
This is such riveting school-yard stuff, it may be best this all gets behind us.
You can't say "Oh hey, I want a game with a female character", because that is a foreign language to Game Pubs as of right now. You need to get people on Kickstarter, have all of them pour $15+ into a fund, and then say "Hey EA/Activision/whomever it may concern, this is how much money you could be making if you made a strong female character lead". The moment you convert your desire into Dollar Signs, Publishers will listen. And if you do that and you can't raise enough money to make greedy Execs cream their pants, you just have to accept that it's not as big of an issue as you want to make it out to be.
Hopefully these stories and the reaction will see a change for more games going forward, for both protagonists as well as co-op characters. Ajay Ghale is pretty much a personality-vaccum empty vessel anyway, so a female model and a few multi-recorded lines "Ajay, my boy!" vs "Ajay, my girl!" shouldn't be too much of a stretch - obviously with a more gender-neutral name.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Note to Reds8n/mods: There was no intentional attempt to bypass the language filter - I don't bother with crap like that. My choice of words was obviously simply not picked up by it.
ref:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/548580.page#6555900 ...and I found another common profanity I used that wasn't picked up. Broke the word into two and now it works.
I will go on record every time to say that yes, that is bs and inexcusable. Especially since they had a game where you played as a female assassin in the series, so the animation was already there that they could pillage/copy/VERY least use as a template.
I don't think I really have to say it, but look at how much more popular Femshep is than Menshep. Sometimes the work just pays off, and that's in a roleplaying game where your character actually matters (And has books of dialogue).
I don't think I really have to say it, but look at how much more popular Femshep is than Menshep. Sometimes the work just pays off, and that's in a roleplaying game where your character actually matters (And has books of dialogue).
Eh...you might want to re-check your data. (Mass Effect 3) Shepard is FAR, FAR more popular than Femshep, i.e. 82% vs. 18%. And that's a RPG...ish, where the portion of female players is significantally higher than in other games (not including mobile crap here).
I would like to see those stats for Dragon Age Inquisition. - So would bioware no doubt. One of the things they intentionally did was randomise what the 'default' was in character creation.
In saying that still, 1 in 5 player a female character isn't insignificant at all. As I like saying to people on this topic: If your boss came up to you and said, "I'm taking 18% off your paycheck, after tax for reasons." Would you dismiss it as insignificant?
Azazelx wrote: While we're still far from "everyone is a gamer", gamers aren't going anywhere. Our gak is here to stay and has climbed into the mainstream with BBT, Marvel movies and all of the rest of it. Pretty much most to all "normal" people haven't heard of "gamergate" nor do they care.
The thing is, to profess to be a "gamer" is evolving differently than what it used to mean.
As you pointed out "normal" people play many games, it is not fringe recreation like it used to be, having a "culture" is becoming more a misnomer.
The way I see it is that "gamer culture" has gone (semi) mainstream. It's not fully there yet, and it's not like sports - but it also depends on what you see as part of "gamer culture". I mean, there's the larger "geek culture" thing that encompasses the whole sci-fi fantasy comic book shebang and gives us Big Bang Theory. I see the "culture" part not so much as being someone who plays Peggle or Candy Crush on their phones - since playing games is becoming much more normalised - but either being right into it and/or understanding the jargon. MMO. RPG. FPS. Rail Shooter. Cover Shooter. RTS. MOBA. Even using a controller that has three joysticks and 13 buttons (maybe a touchpad as well) without feeling any intimidation from the thing and instead being completely comfortable with it.
At the same time, I consider all of this stuff to be just as much part of "gamer culture". The Warhams we paint and the Zombicides that we play and the Pathfinders that we find. This whole forum. It's a different genre and kind of game, sure, but then so is Just Dance and Guitar Hero when compared to Halo or Madden. After all, someone who is into sports can be into watching F1 and playing Hockey and still be "sports culture" etc.
I've been a gamer for almost my entire life. Yet I don't give two feths about #gamergate or SJWs (both sides are filled with morons. But then again, what do you expect from a #hashtagwar?
So again, as you point out so well, you are not emotionally attached to the label, you game and do not identify as a "gamer" so much of the drivel flung about has little meaning to you.
Ah, but you see, I do identify as a gamer. I've been a gamer since before many of the monkeys flinging poo at one another right now as part of this were born. I just don't think that the poo is going to stick. As others have said, every group of people contains a good number of feth wits. I've been around for long enough to see that it doesn't stick to me, and that with the rise of Spider Man, Transformers, Big Bang Theory, Sony PlayStation and XBox into the mainstream - along with working alongside "normal people" that it's incredibly obvious that gaming culture isn't poisonous, or the term/identity hasn't been poisoned, or any of that crap. Most people who live outside the goldfish bowl don't know or care about #gamergate or Anita - and a brief interview on the Daily Show doesn't change that.
Sexism in gaming is alive and well, and I'd like to see less of it. Death threats are for feth wits either way.
As long as humans are involved this stuff happens and should not surprise...
While I'll agree with that. The problem with the internet and people with differing levels of ...familiarity with "internet culture" as well as more younger people these days seemingly not having a fething clue about posting moronic things is that stupid "death threats" are even more common. See the Code Avarice saga. (Seriously, google it. It's worth a read, a good laugh and a facepalm.) But hey, consequences are a thing.
Anita's stuff (pre-"gamergate" anyway) is skewed and has a few too many half-truths and twists of the truth sprinkled throughout it to take 100% seriously but I still find it interesting, and she does make good and valid points as well.
What makes what she says dangerous is people who are involved in determining policy would take much of what she says at face value and maybe less salt than you, which is what makes her rather one-sided views problematic.
This is why she is so vehemently attacked on many points because it is not balanced, it demands a critique which BTW she typically closes all means of discussion or feedback.
See, here's the thing. And I'm not sure if the way the discourse has developed is symptomatic of how polarised the US has become between red and blue viewpoints over the last decade or so - but simply attacking her so vehemently (from the KS onwards) - initially from idiot man-children might be what has caused her and her supporters to double down on their overall viewpoint, and in turn those who slightly disagree doing the same, and Zoe Quinn and her dodgy friends and gakky game getting drawn into the fight so that now both sides are generally so shouty and polarisied that they're generally unwilling to take on or accept valid points that the others make.
Bringing to light gakky "game journalism" is a good thing, though my most trusted source these days is Forbes - yeah, the financial paper/site. Not beholden to the producers of the product. Along with sidetracks into people like Sterling, Joe, Yahtzee, etc. Still, I'll read and watch an IGN or Gamespot review, and oddly, they (generally) seem a little less paid off and filled with bs lately. (See reviews for The Order).
This is the thing as well, the label "journalist" is being attacked where many sources do not behave like they are conveying news impartially, more like an extension of advertising for gaming companies.
A name for a type or group of people conveys a certain meaning with all the benefits and prejudices that entails.
If we as "gamers" make fun of the publications saying they are not behaving like proper "journalists" then it is funny how they turn around and say "Oh yeah? Well gamers are dead! You guys do not exist, what you say then is unimportant, we are publishing for the general public this is not a publication catering to a dead fan base."
Generally speaking, "gaming journalism" has been in the "lolwut?" category for a long, long time. There have been bright sparks, but generally it's been piss poor for decades. Look up almost any mention of Peter Molyneaux over the y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶ decades before the recent few that show the gaming press turning on him. But "gaming journalism" has been pretty much accepted for the corrupt thing that it is for many years. Ask Jeff Gerstmann. Despite the attention-seeking "gamers are dead" article (which you seem to be echoing here in a way?) that article was written by a single commentator and published by a single publication's editor/editing staff. It is also just as much a joke as the rest of "gaming journalism" has generally been. I'm hoping that one positive that will come out of this is that game journalism will be a little more like journalism and less like PR, but I suspect that this too will blow over. At least some have added "ethic policies" and started to state where there are potential conflicts of interest. If there are any long-term changes, it'll be the result of competition from sites like GiantBomb, the YouTubers that are big enough to openly have integrity, and places that aren't beholden to game advertisers like Forbes.
This is such riveting school-yard stuff, it may be best this all gets behind us.
It's already behind us for the most part. And I'm still a gamer, just like I was this time last year.
Soladrin wrote: Give me proof that sexism in games equates to actual sexism, you know, like with violence.
Sigvatr wrote: Correct. Until there is proof that it does, it doesn't. Period. Assuming the opposite is highly illogical as you'd assume stuff without proof. Thinking that playing video games with sexist content causes sexist behavior puts one in the same corner as people thinking that violent video games cause violent behavior and frequently masturbating causes AIDS.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: “Hey, how dare you call me out for lazy writing relying on harmful stereotypes? You should thank me for my lazy writing!”
*record scratch*
Proof that they are harmful? […]
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Violent video game do not make people violent. Constantly portraying female characters in certain stereotypical ways and roles in fiction, across all the different kind of media, will very likely have an effect on the perception of real-life women.
PROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE IT.
mattyrm wrote: Come on lads, the old "games make kids do bad things" has been proven wrong countless times, it was parroted primarily by stuffy American Conservatives in the 80s, but has been proved wrong time and time again, there is absolutely no evidence that violent games make people violent, so why would misogynistic games make people misogynist?
Hey do you know what? No. Edited by Manchu. Because I cannot answer to a dozen of different people saying the exact same bs while ignoring all the answers I make to anyone else, or just pile in to “haha, how silly is he, let us make fun of it”. Especially when if I push a bit I get inane idiocy like
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?
You'll understand this when you have kids. other people? no, always traced back to the parents, yes. Your kids will turn out to be just like you.
I am not sure if that comment was meant as trolling or if it is the result of an intellectual breakdown, but I just do not even want to answer to someone who pretends children always share the social values of their parents, without any other influence, because that is just one step too far into cuckooland. You “win”, rejoice! If anyone wants to have a real discussion, we can do that by MP. Except H.B.M.C., because H.B.M.C., of course. Other examples of fallacies and other non-sense that show me I am better off stopping the discussion.
I think actually you meant “I have never noticed misogyny in gaming in my area”, which is pretty damn different.
Nope I meant exactly what I said.
Then you are too self-centered to realize that the fact you do not notice it does not mean it does not exist. Congratulation!
Slarg232 wrote: A) You make it sound as though video game journalism doesn't matter, which means by extension you don't think video games matter.
Uh, no? Where did you get that totally wrong deduction? This “extension” only exist in your brain.
Slarg232 wrote: B) If Video Games cause Sexism, what games have they been playing for the past 2,000 years?
If shooting at people with a machine gun kills them, what machine gun has been used to kill all the people in the last 2000 years? Ah, logic seems too hard to you.
jreilly89 wrote: Edit: before you go off about sexism, I am all for a woman president (who is competent, no damn Sarah Palin), am happily married to a woman I respect, and have a daughter.
I am not racist, some of my servants are black! Yeah, that is how much sense you are making right now. Saudi clerics have many wives, and tons of daughters. Sure they must be very feminist!
Yeah, anyone making such statement is obviously not worth discussing with.
Extra:
mattyrm wrote: My 11 year old nephew laughed hysterically when I showed him a Deux Ex video of the bloke double punching two prostitutes, but he would never hit a woman in real life because he has been raised with manners and moral fiber, I have to agree with Bullockist and the rest on this score.
Way to miss the point, Mattyrm . Let us take a more… realistic example. In case of conscription, there are many people that would be uncomfortable with, or even flat out refuse, to serve under a woman. Hell, even in civilian life, some people would really dislike having a woman as a boss. Now, would those have been more, or less, hostile to having female superiors if their favorite stories from when they were children, teenagers, or even now, were filled with competent, efficient, strong female officers rather than helpless, clueless damsel distress in wait to be rescue? And no, it is not just a yes/no switch where just changing one variable with suddenly change everyone's mind, it is just one small part in the biggest scheme of things. But it not being the one and only factor determining everything does not mean it is irrelevant.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: [In case of conscription, there are many people that would be uncomfortable with, or even flat out refuse, to serve under a woman.Hell, even in civilian life, some people would really dislike having a woman as a boss. Now, would those have been more, or less, hostile to having female superiors if their favorite stories from when they were children, teenagers, or even now, were filled with competent, efficient, strong female officers rather than helpless, clueless damsel distress in wait to be rescue?
I had all of those things I was more than happy to take orders from a female of higher rank than me. I think the vast majority of my mates were as well, very few men in the Royal Marines seemed to have any problem taking orders from a lady of higher rank, why would they?
Ergo, even though I can certainly see the logic of your point (you might tend to think it makes sense) apparently the experts say otherwise. Think about it, for me to agree with you, I have to turn what I know about myself and the majority of the people I know upside down. We all grew up playing games with damsels in distress, we all like and respect women and happily served alongside/under them on occasion.
We all played Grand Theft Auto, none of us think its acceptable to car jack people. Don't you see how its basically the exact same thing? How many people played Mario as a kid, how many of them are misogynists? I agree that on the face of it at least, to people like you and I (not professional psychiatrists) you would think that maybe seeing misogynistic tropes might make you more likely to be sexist, but apparently they actually don't, just like how violent games don't make you violent.
I mean, I'm happy to have my mind changed like, have you got any credible intelligence that suggests men (or women) and more likely to hate women because of minor things like the gender of the love interest in a video game?
I'm not saying I don't believe it because I don't want to, I'm saying I don't believe it because me and all my mates grew up in the 80s and I dont think any of them are bigoted or scornful of women, so why would it be true for one thing and not the other?
Seriously I met lots of competent intelligent women in the service, there is absolutely no shame in taking order from a woman of higher rank and I never met a capable, intelligent soldier that thought otherwise.
If a man is a misogynist, its because he is a feth-wit, and probably has some sort of, confidence/mental issues, I very much doubt something as trivial as seeing the occasional sexist movie or playing Super Mario is going to do that to anybody with an IQ above 75.
A stirring, inspiring and well-crafted rebuttal. Truly you make us all look small when you stride above us waving around such magnificant iron-clad proof as "go feth yourselves".
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Because I cannot answer to a dozen of different people saying the exact same bs while ignoring all the answers I make to anyone else, or just pile in to “haha, how silly is he, let us make fun of it”.
So you're saying that lots of people disagree with you and are calling you on your nonsense, and you don't like having all these people yelling at you for proof?
Well you know what to next:
1. Actually prove your assertions. 1. Post about 'harassment' on Twitter. 2. Pretend to flee your home. 3. Link to your Patreon. 4. Buy a motorcycle.
mattyrm wrote: Seriously I met lots of competent intelligent women in the service, there is absolutely no shame in taking order from a woman of higher rank and I never met a capable, intelligent soldier that thought otherwise.
If a man is a misogynist, its because he is a feth-wit, and probably has some sort of, confidence/mental issues, I very much doubt something as trivial as seeing the occasional sexist movie or playing Super Mario is going to do that to anybody with an IQ above 75.
Exalted. Sexism has existed for centuries, and guess what? Super Mario was invented in the 80's
Are people arguing that media doesn't affect you? Maybe that isn't it, but it's what it is sounding like. The idea that media doesn't affect people is just so mind boggling that Google doesn't even accept it. I keeps adding an how in front of my query on the subject.
You know that a discussion is a 2 (or more) way street where people with opposing opinions respect each other and try to sway the other with well formed sentences backed up
with research (or knowledge) that back your points.
"FU i am right your wrong" is a very juvenile response.
nomotog wrote: Are people arguing that media doesn't affect you? Maybe that isn't it, but it's what it is sounding like. The idea that media doesn't affect people is just so mind boggling that Google doesn't even accept it. I keeps adding an how in front of my query on the subject.
I don't think I would go so far as to say it doesn't affect you at all, I'm just aware that numerous studies have said that there is no real link between watching violent movies and playing violent games and actually being violent. I know the British Government used to ban gak all the time back in the eighties, but such things don't happen anymore because all of the professionals have debunked that kinda thing.
Michelangelo never had his nunchucks back in the day when the TMNT cartoons hit the UK, they don't care now, and yet here we are, people of my generation are generally nice pleasant folks no more likely to decapitate someone with a shovel than someone born in those prim and proper 1920's.
Like I told Hybrid, I'm not as passionately against his arguments as some of the blokes in here, but studies by smarter men than us appear to have suggested that the link is minimal at best.
Its back to what I have argued with Mel and Hybrid over countless times I'm afraid, its not that I think it isn't linked to anything to do with misogyny at all, just that its almost trivial so I don't think we shouldnt really be worrying about it, If I had to pick the root causes of an irrational hatred of women, I think fething "gaming culture" would be almost right at the bottom of the list. Same goes for almost eberything else I drip about, basiclaly anything and everything hobby.
Some minis have their tits out? Well so what? Mario rescues Princess? Whippee- doo. Its like worrying about a wasps nest at the foot of your yard when your kitchen is on fire.
My point isn't that the media isn't responsible for nothing ever, and gak, I would even go so far as to say we should indeed stop pushing images of Sports Illustrated models at young girls and try harder to give gals a bit more value themselves, but holy gak.. that's for parents to do. I'm pretty sure I would raise an awesome girl despite "the media" because I would be a loving dad and a smart parent.
Really, why not just forget about "the media" and worry about the in your face clearly and overtly problematic roots of misogyny, I can think of about a dozen off the top of my head. Lets see, is it Final Fight having three blokes throw people through telephone boxes that is screwing women over, or is it gak like confidence issues, familial problems, child abuse, some social structures, mental illness, all of the big religions, narcissism, sexual frustration and a gak-load of rejection?
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?
You'll understand this when you have kids. other people? no, always traced back to the parents, yes. Your kids will turn out to be just like you.
I am not sure if that comment was meant as trolling or if it is the result of an intellectual breakdown, but I just do not even want to answer to someone who pretends children always share the social values of their parents, without any other influence, because that is just one step too far into cuckooland. You “win”, rejoice!
Well if modern psychology is cuckoo land territory for you, that certain explains your outburst here. Which of your parents where prone to the childish outburst you just had?
A good way to think about the childhood mind is being like a big block of stone. For roughly the first six years of your life your parents were the sole sculptors of that stone.
They slowly chipped away at it and shaped it in their own image. This sculpted stone then became the base of who you are as a person today and what the other sculptors in your life will have to work with.
The block of stone that we have just been referring to is your subconscious mind. It contains all the beliefs which you have about yourself and the world you live in.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?
You'll understand this when you have kids. other people? no, always traced back to the parents, yes. Your kids will turn out to be just like you.
I am not sure if that comment was meant as trolling or if it is the result of an intellectual breakdown, but I just do not even want to answer to someone who pretends children always share the social values of their parents, without any other influence, because that is just one step too far into cuckooland. You “win”, rejoice!
Well if modern psychology is cuckoo land territory for you, that certain explains your outburst here. Which of your parents where prone to the childish outburst you just had?
A good way to think about the childhood mind is being like a big block of stone. For roughly the first six years of your life your parents were the sole sculptors of that stone.
They slowly chipped away at it and shaped it in their own image. This sculpted stone then became the base of who you are as a person today and what the other sculptors in your life will have to work with.
The block of stone that we have just been referring to is your subconscious mind. It contains all the beliefs which you have about yourself and the world you live in.
yea, I win, and there was much rejoicing.
Your last statement is rather cocky, and really puts your argument to shame. Don't get me wrong, I like the quote you included, but acting like you know everything doesn't help a reasonable argument.
Besides, I think a lot of psychology places a little too much emphasis on childhood and not enough on self-responsibility. Don't get me wrong, childhood is huge and will shape who you are, but there is something to be said for having some self-knowledge and not letting your past define you. Plenty of people have started with gakky childhoods and moved on to greater things and become awesome human beings.
Arguing with Hybrid is one of the most pointless things you can do. Best just to put him on ignore and move on. This same kind of discussion has been had over and over again with him, and it never does anything good.
The only thing arguing with him is known to do is send a thread off topic, and toward the lock. There are very few posters in history of Dakka that display his talent at ruining an entire forum (The Video game forum).
nomotog wrote: Are people arguing that media doesn't affect you? Maybe that isn't it, but it's what it is sounding like. The idea that media doesn't affect people is just so mind boggling that Google doesn't even accept it. I keeps adding an how in front of my query on the subject.
People who can't discern reality from fiction, perhaps...
That's why we have age dependant content warnings on movies and games. Younger people are the most impressionable. By the time you grow up, you grow (or should grow) out of that impressionabilty. That's why the "sexist/violent video games cause sexism/violence " argument is so annoying. It's treating gamers like children.
And why comments like "I wouldn't let my kids play that!" gall me so much, because they're often said in relation to games that have been specifically rated to be not for kids in the first place. "I wouldn't let my kinds play that!" about GTAV is no more insightful or revelatory than saying "I wouldn't let my 6 year old watch Hostel!". Of course you fething wouldn't. It's not for them!
Video games are still seen as something kids do. The very idea that they're made for adults seems to pass some people by, and that's just tragic.
And why comments like "I wouldn't let my kids play that!" gall me so much, because they're often said in relation to games that have been specifically rated to be not for kids in the first place. "I wouldn't let my kinds play that!" about GTAV is no more insightful or revelatory than saying "I wouldn't let my 6 year old watch Hostel!". Of course you fething wouldn't. It's not for them!
Video games are still seen as something kids do. The very idea that they're made for adults seems to pass some people by, and that's just tragic.
Which is funny when it's been the biggest form of media for a while now.
nomotog wrote: Are people arguing that media doesn't affect you? Maybe that isn't it, but it's what it is sounding like. The idea that media doesn't affect people is just so mind boggling that Google doesn't even accept it. I keeps adding an how in front of my query on the subject.
What are your search terms? When I typed "media doesn't cause violence," there were links to articles about a study that shows it doesn't among the first few entries.
In fact, when I just typed "media doesn't" into the search bar, the auto fill options were "body image" and "society"
And why comments like "I wouldn't let my kids play that!" gall me so much, because they're often said in relation to games that have been specifically rated to be not for kids in the first place. "I wouldn't let my kinds play that!" about GTAV is no more insightful or revelatory than saying "I wouldn't let my 6 year old watch Hostel!". Of course you fething wouldn't. It's not for them!
Video games are still seen as something kids do. The very idea that they're made for adults seems to pass some people by, and that's just tragic.
Ai, its the same with Anime. People seem to have this idea that cartoons are always for children, when it reality its just another medium.
Hey do you know what? No. Or, rather, go feth yourselves, all of you.
There's no need to feel or get defensive and especially not in such a tone. You know that I really like you as a poster and wasn't aiming to offend you. The point is that you can't just post blank statements and sell them as a fact when the exact opposite is the case. It's perfectly in order and okay to state that as your opinion or even say that you strongly think so because of several reasons. But please don't misportray information.
Sigvatr wrote: The point is that you can't just post blank statements and sell them as a fact when the exact opposite is the case. It's perfectly in order and okay to state that as your opinion or even say that you strongly think so because of several reasons. But please don't misportray information.
Compel wrote: I would like to see those stats for Dragon Age Inquisition. - So would bioware no doubt. One of the things they intentionally did was randomise what the 'default' was in character creation.
In saying that still, 1 in 5 player a female character isn't insignificant at all. As I like saying to people on this topic: If your boss came up to you and said, "I'm taking 18% off your paycheck, after tax for reasons." Would you dismiss it as insignificant?
Bioware doesn't like to see those stats, they have them. They've always data mined their own games.
It works for the industry. Noone takes her seriously as everyone knows that she has very little substance but she's a great posterboy / girl. Have her talk about her stuff, people think you're super engaged in feminism in games and still continue actually doing the same thing you did before.
nomotog wrote: Are people arguing that media doesn't affect you? Maybe that isn't it, but it's what it is sounding like. The idea that media doesn't affect people is just so mind boggling that Google doesn't even accept it. I keeps adding an how in front of my query on the subject.
People who can't discern reality from fiction, perhaps...
That's why we have age dependant content warnings on movies and games. Younger people are the most impressionable. By the time you grow up, you grow (or should grow) out of that impressionabilty. That's why the "sexist/violent video games cause sexism/violence " argument is so annoying. It's treating gamers like children.
Well kids play games too and another one of the differences between violent content and sexist content is that we don't restrict or even label sexist content. I think I recall a debate about if it should be labeled and most people thought the idea was crazy over reaching. (maybe this form?)
nomotog wrote: Are people arguing that media doesn't affect you? Maybe that isn't it, but it's what it is sounding like. The idea that media doesn't affect people is just so mind boggling that Google doesn't even accept it. I keeps adding an how in front of my query on the subject.
What are your search terms? When I typed "media doesn't cause violence," there were links to articles about a study that shows it doesn't among the first few entries.
In fact, when I just typed "media doesn't" into the search bar, the auto fill options were "body image" and "society"
I wanted to keep it generic and without a inherent bias in the search, so I just asked the question Dose media affect you. Are you affected by media. Are we affected by media. Basically every result was talking about how media affects us.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, do they pick up only from parents because of some magical link, or could they pick up from other people?
You'll understand this when you have kids. other people? no, always traced back to the parents, yes. Your kids will turn out to be just like you.
I am not sure if that comment was meant as trolling or if it is the result of an intellectual breakdown, but I just do not even want to answer to someone who pretends children always share the social values of their parents, without any other influence, because that is just one step too far into cuckooland. You “win”, rejoice!
Well if modern psychology is cuckoo land territory for you, that certain explains your outburst here. Which of your parents where prone to the childish outburst you just had?
A good way to think about the childhood mind is being like a big block of stone. For roughly the first six years of your life your parents were the sole sculptors of that stone.
They slowly chipped away at it and shaped it in their own image. This sculpted stone then became the base of who you are as a person today and what the other sculptors in your life will have to work with.
The block of stone that we have just been referring to is your subconscious mind. It contains all the beliefs which you have about yourself and the world you live in.
yea, I win, and there was much rejoicing.
Your last statement is rather cocky, and really puts your argument to shame. Don't get me wrong, I like the quote you included, but acting like you know everything doesn't help a reasonable argument.
Besides, I think a lot of psychology places a little too much emphasis on childhood and not enough on self-responsibility. Don't get me wrong, childhood is huge and will shape who you are, but there is something to be said for having some self-knowledge and not letting your past define you. Plenty of people have started with gakky childhoods and moved on to greater things and become awesome human beings.
I knew I should have posted the monty python video. I don't know everything, I can admit that, but I do know google, I have taken parenting classes, and I know how to find proof to back up my claims. so read the article I linked and ignore my snarky replies to insulting replies.
The same article touched on that briefly "In this sense, the root of the subconscious is essentially a combination of your parents' minds and will stay that way unless it is examined and changed" For most to reach the stage where they are examining and choosing to change, the term is rock bottom.
1. Decide that you really want to change and convince yourself that you can.
You can only change what you decide you want to change. All psychological models of change emphasize the importance of commitment as a necessary first step. If you don't see a problem, you won't work on changing your behavior.
Playing a video game is not going to cause someone to examine their subconscious and go, "yes, I should choose to be more sexists."
It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
And yet we're not out there murdering people 'cause of video games.
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
There's a bit of difference between "that's a cool thing; I want to buy it" and "Time to murder someone like in GTA"
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
And yet we're not out there murdering people 'cause of video games.
Speak for yourself! I'm out there frequently gunning people down wearing nothing but a t-shirt with naked, busty women.
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
Big difference between:
"Oh Hey, Sub Zero just ripped some dudes skull and spine out of their body, that was pretty damn awesome"
And
"Man I'm hungry, what should I eat?....... Huh, McD's is in 5 miles, might as well stop there".
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
Big difference between:
"Oh Hey, Sub Zero just ripped some dudes skull and spine out of their body, that was pretty damn awesome"
And
"Man I'm hungry, what should I eat?....... Huh, McD's is in 5 miles, might as well stop there".
Speak for yourself. McD's forgot my fries and I screamed "FINISH HIM!!!" before freezing him and ripping his spine out
Azazelx wrote: While we're still far from "everyone is a gamer", gamers aren't going anywhere. Our gak is here to stay and has climbed into the mainstream with BBT, Marvel movies and all of the rest of it. Pretty much most to all "normal" people haven't heard of "gamergate" nor do they care.
The thing is, to profess to be a "gamer" is evolving differently than what it used to mean.
As you pointed out "normal" people play many games, it is not fringe recreation like it used to be, having a "culture" is becoming more a misnomer.
The way I see it is that "gamer culture" has gone (semi) mainstream. It's not fully there yet, and it's not like sports - but it also depends on what you see as part of "gamer culture". I mean, there's the larger "geek culture" thing that encompasses the whole sci-fi fantasy comic book shebang and gives us Big Bang Theory. I see the "culture" part not so much as being someone who plays Peggle or Candy Crush on their phones - since playing games is becoming much more normalised - but either being right into it and/or understanding the jargon. MMO. RPG. FPS. Rail Shooter. Cover Shooter. RTS. MOBA. Even using a controller that has three joysticks and 13 buttons (maybe a touchpad as well) without feeling any intimidation from the thing and instead being completely comfortable with it.
At the same time, I consider all of this stuff to be just as much part of "gamer culture". The Warhams we paint and the Zombicides that we play and the Pathfinders that we find. This whole forum. It's a different genre and kind of game, sure, but then so is Just Dance and Guitar Hero when compared to Halo or Madden. After all, someone who is into sports can be into watching F1 and playing Hockey and still be "sports culture" etc.
I've been a gamer for almost my entire life. Yet I don't give two feths about #gamergate or SJWs (both sides are filled with morons. But then again, what do you expect from a #hashtagwar?
So again, as you point out so well, you are not emotionally attached to the label, you game and do not identify as a "gamer" so much of the drivel flung about has little meaning to you.
Ah, but you see, I do identify as a gamer. I've been a gamer since before many of the monkeys flinging poo at one another right now as part of this were born. I just don't think that the poo is going to stick. As others have said, every group of people contains a good number of feth wits. I've been around for long enough to see that it doesn't stick to me, and that with the rise of Spider Man, Transformers, Big Bang Theory, Sony PlayStation and XBox into the mainstream - along with working alongside "normal people" that it's incredibly obvious that gaming culture isn't poisonous, or the term/identity hasn't been poisoned, or any of that crap. Most people who live outside the goldfish bowl don't know or care about #gamergate or Anita - and a brief interview on the Daily Show doesn't change that.
Sexism in gaming is alive and well, and I'd like to see less of it. Death threats are for feth wits either way.
As long as humans are involved this stuff happens and should not surprise...
While I'll agree with that. The problem with the internet and people with differing levels of ...familiarity with "internet culture" as well as more younger people these days seemingly not having a fething clue about posting moronic things is that stupid "death threats" are even more common. See the Code Avarice saga. (Seriously, google it. It's worth a read, a good laugh and a facepalm.) But hey, consequences are a thing.
Anita's stuff (pre-"gamergate" anyway) is skewed and has a few too many half-truths and twists of the truth sprinkled throughout it to take 100% seriously but I still find it interesting, and she does make good and valid points as well.
What makes what she says dangerous is people who are involved in determining policy would take much of what she says at face value and maybe less salt than you, which is what makes her rather one-sided views problematic.
This is why she is so vehemently attacked on many points because it is not balanced, it demands a critique which BTW she typically closes all means of discussion or feedback.
See, here's the thing. And I'm not sure if the way the discourse has developed is symptomatic of how polarised the US has become between red and blue viewpoints over the last decade or so - but simply attacking her so vehemently (from the KS onwards) - initially from idiot man-children might be what has caused her and her supporters to double down on their overall viewpoint, and in turn those who slightly disagree doing the same, and Zoe Quinn and her dodgy friends and gakky game getting drawn into the fight so that now both sides are generally so shouty and polarisied that they're generally unwilling to take on or accept valid points that the others make.
Bringing to light gakky "game journalism" is a good thing, though my most trusted source these days is Forbes - yeah, the financial paper/site. Not beholden to the producers of the product. Along with sidetracks into people like Sterling, Joe, Yahtzee, etc. Still, I'll read and watch an IGN or Gamespot review, and oddly, they (generally) seem a little less paid off and filled with bs lately. (See reviews for The Order).
This is the thing as well, the label "journalist" is being attacked where many sources do not behave like they are conveying news impartially, more like an extension of advertising for gaming companies.
A name for a type or group of people conveys a certain meaning with all the benefits and prejudices that entails.
If we as "gamers" make fun of the publications saying they are not behaving like proper "journalists" then it is funny how they turn around and say "Oh yeah? Well gamers are dead! You guys do not exist, what you say then is unimportant, we are publishing for the general public this is not a publication catering to a dead fan base."
Generally speaking, "gaming journalism" has been in the "lolwut?" category for a long, long time. There have been bright sparks, but generally it's been piss poor for decades. Look up almost any mention of Peter Molyneaux over the y̶e̶a̶r̶s̶ decades before the recent few that show the gaming press turning on him. But "gaming journalism" has been pretty much accepted for the corrupt thing that it is for many years. Ask Jeff Gerstmann. Despite the attention-seeking "gamers are dead" article (which you seem to be echoing here in a way?) that article was written by a single commentator and published by a single publication's editor/editing staff. It is also just as much a joke as the rest of "gaming journalism" has generally been. I'm hoping that one positive that will come out of this is that game journalism will be a little more like journalism and less like PR, but I suspect that this too will blow over. At least some have added "ethic policies" and started to state where there are potential conflicts of interest. If there are any long-term changes, it'll be the result of competition from sites like GiantBomb, the YouTubers that are big enough to openly have integrity, and places that aren't beholden to game advertisers like Forbes.
This is such riveting school-yard stuff, it may be best this all gets behind us.
It's already behind us for the most part. And I'm still a gamer, just like I was this time last year.
Pretty much on same page, experiences and status as a "gamer".
Thanks for the point-by-point reply.
I would disagree on the "gamers are dead" as being one article, this person was kind enough to tally them (12 at that infamous time):
https://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/ The google search alone with some 20 million hits at least shows it has some interest:
https://www.google.com/search?q=gamers+dead What you had mentioned is that there are so many variations of this label that the range is too broad to fit comfortably, like being into "sports": more of a lead-in than a label.
This is what is more relevant; it is less that the "identity" of being a "gamer" that has "normalized" but that the varied interests and sub-groups within, are not readily contained in the one label.
I could say "I like sports, I do kendo and hockey." I can also say "I like gaming, Warhammer 40k and strategy PC games."
The true LOL moments I found with all this are the various gaming media "stars" trying to wrestle control of the topic away from the public, saying they were not answerable for what they do since "gamers" are just boy geeks in their parent's basement... sucks when you are out of touch with your audience or not know who they are.
Now we are entire families on phones, tablets, game systems and PC and various times during the day, kids, dad and mom... this is prime time entertainment that has largely shifted from TV. The audience has grown well beyond what reviewers are used to and are getting away with less. They need to talk more to Hollywood and learn from them how it gets when the audience turns against them.
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
And yet we're not out there murdering people 'cause of video games.
Speak for yourself! I'm out there frequently gunning people down wearing nothing but a t-shirt with naked, busty women.
I am a huge supporter of paintball.
I would strongly suggest not doing it naked or with only a T-shirt: nether region fire reaches such an exquisite level of pain(t) it is just best to have clothing.
In all seriousness, some moments in gaming you want to try to recreate or simulate in real life since it was so epic.
As long as we stick to things that do not maim or kill we are golden...
There's no need to feel or get defensive and especially not in such a tone. You know that I really like you as a poster and wasn't aiming to offend you. The point is that you can't just post blank statements and sell them as a fact when the exact opposite is the case. It's perfectly in order and okay to state that as your opinion or even say that you strongly think so because of several reasons. But please don't misportray information.
Well, you can tell Hybrid cares at least. When the swearing starts, it does tend to give the audience the permission to ignore you and what you had to say however. Sigvatr, it is perfectly fine to feel defensive when a person has made a statement possibly off-hand and gets taken-up on it: we all do.
It just gets maddening when data to defend the statement or worse, knowing you were wrong happens: public retractions or apologies suck.
Gaming culture! We are fething pieces of work who like to nit-pick everything: long habit messing with gaming rules.
I'm moving this thread to OT. That's where all of these GamerGate fallout threads should be posted from here on out. Feel free to PM me if you have a question about where a thread you want to post should go. Thanks.
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
There's a bit of difference between "that's a cool thing; I want to buy it" and "Time to murder someone like in GTA"
Well ya some things are easier to influence then others. I actually believe this debate started because someone said they thought videogames encouraged sexism, but not violence. People kind of jumped up and said how can it be one and not the other, but it's basically the same thing here.
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
And yet we're not out there murdering people 'cause of video games.
Well no, you're not going to murder or rape someone solely because you did it in a video game, but it can have a contributive effect.
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
And yet we're not out there murdering people 'cause of video games.
Well no, you're not going to murder or rape someone solely because you did it in a video game, but it can have a contributive effect.
I respectfully disagree, as most people whom are going to murder someone are more messed up in the head than influenced to do it. The influence of games would contribute in that factor, but only because the guy is highly influenced and highly disturbed.
Ashiraya wrote: It seems a bit naïve to think that video games and media doesn't affect us. Things like this do affect us. In the US, countless billions of dollars (220 billion IIRC?) was spent last year on advertising. That wouldn't happen if it had no effect.
Humans are actually quite impressionable creatures, whether we like it or not.
And yet we're not out there murdering people 'cause of video games.
Well no, you're not going to murder or rape someone solely because you did it in a video game, but it can have a contributive effect.
Based on what?
Also in how many games you can actually sexually assault something?
Slarg232 wrote: I respectfully disagree, as most people whom are going to murder someone are more messed up in the head than influenced to do it. The influence of games would contribute in that factor, but only because the guy is highly influenced and highly disturbed.
You're assuming that all murders are coldly calculated far in advance, and not the result of poor impulse control. For example, a person with anger issues who plays lots of violent games, watches lots of violent movies, etc, is probably more likely to lose control in a road rage incident than someone with anger issues who removes those influences from their life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
illuknisaa wrote: Also in how many games you can actually sexually assault something?
That's not the point. The actual point is that (some) games reinforce attitudes about sexual assault, gender stereotypes/values, etc, that contribute to sexual assault. You don't have to release a "rape as many people as possible" game to contribute to things like the stereotype of the "stranger jumps out of the bushes" rapist. And that's a stereotype that is often used to dismiss cases where the victim knew the rapist as "that's not really rape", "she was at a party and drinking", etc.
C is better with more 
