Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you buy a game, you fully support everything in that game.

Attacking strawmen is lame and you should be ashamed of doing it.

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you buy a game, you fully support everything in that game. At the same time, you don't. What?

False dilemma. It is possible to like a game sufficiently for it to be worth its cost, but that doesn't mean you have to think it's flawless.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you buy a game, you fully support everything in that game.

Attacking strawmen is lame and you should be ashamed of doing it.

Calling a non-strawman a strawmen because it goes against your personal agenda is bad and you should feel bad. No treats.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
If you buy a game, you fully support everything in that game. At the same time, you don't. What?

False dilemma. It is possible to like a game sufficiently for it to be worth its cost, but that doesn't mean you have to think it's flawless.

That's what I said.

Key is: two perspectives.

Wait, so if I give to the church, I support everything they do?

 AdeptSister wrote:
Wait, so if I give to the church, I support everything they do?

When did the church start selling video games?

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
I do.

Nope.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Looking at the sales numbers of all former GTA games

Just because someone buys something does not mean that they have no problems with it. I bought Dishonored even though I think its plot is crap, because it was five bucks and its gameplay was fun. And of course, its gameplay has been fun and its plot has been crap, so there you go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Too good to pass up.

Those two quotes aren't contradictory at all.

The first one was me responding to someone asserting that "if people will just look at video games as what they are" they'll see things his way. The second one was me saying I thought the conclusion was wrong. I never said that my conclusion was the only one that it was possible to come to. Only that it was the one I think is right.

But any problems they do have with it are not enough to affect their purchase.

Let's then go and look at the amazon reviews, then. After all, maybe people bought it but were then upset at the content.

Looking at Amazon.co.uk, PS3 version (has most reviews) and out of 1668 reviews, 1401 are 5 star, 170 are 4 star, 55 are 3 star, 22 are 2 star, 40 are 1 star. The only 1 star review that mentions sex in any way was from a woman who apparently bought the game for her son and didn't like that there was a sex shop.

Found a 2 star review that says:

This is the most vulgar gaming video I have ever seen. Why does it have to have strip clubs and prostitutes etc. I really don't understand how this can be censored. Young boys are playing this game for the missions and exposing them to this vile porn is disgusting.

so, another person who doesn't understand what an 18 in a red circle means, apparently.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Wait, so if I give to the church, I support everything they do?

When did the church start selling video games?

Though I think that particular game is more a case of

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But any problems they do have with it are not enough to affect their purchase.

Which doesn't mean that there are no problems. Basically, asserting you know why the average person buys or doesn't buy a product is foolhardy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Let's then go and look at the amazon reviews, then. After all, maybe people bought it but were then upset at the content.

That's a much better measure than Sigvatr's "I don't care so no one else does stfu" attitude, but you should still keep in mind that a lot of people, if they're unhappy with a console game, will bring it back to have it exchanged for a different game.

Well they have promoted bible video games...
But my point was that your statement was very reductive.

 AdeptSister wrote:
Well they have promoted bible video games...
But my point was that your statement was very reductive.

And my point is that this is about video games

 AdeptSister wrote:
Well they have promoted bible video games...
But my point was that your statement was very reductive.

Sigvatr doesn't appear to have anything other than straw arguments today.

 Melissia wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Well they have promoted bible video games...
But my point was that your statement was very reductive.

Sigvatr doesn't appear to have anything other than straw arguments today.

Man, I wish I had a pet mod too that would have my back :(

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
Well they have promoted bible video games...
But my point was that your statement was very reductive.

Sigvatr doesn't appear to have anything other than straw arguments today.

Man, I wish I had a pet mod too that would have my back :(

To be fair your posts in this thread are currently protecting most of the crops of Europe from birds

Meh, I'm used to her "He disagrees, must be a strawman!" scheme. Irrational behavior 101.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Man, I wish I had a pet mod too that would have my back :(

.
What the hell are you talking about?

We're getting kinda OT; thread's about an issue a handful of people have with a video game 99.9% of the rest of the population thoroughly enjoyed.

The thread is about a company making a decision to not sell a product anymore, actually, rather than a handful of people having a problem.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The thread is about a company making a decision to not sell a product anymore, actually, rather than a handful of people having a problem.

Why did they decide to do so?

I wasn't aware that there was a full-blown first person sex scene in GTA V, but speaking as a man who always hits escape as soon as the baps come out in Mass Effect because he cringes while alone in his own room (overly animated children's TV presenters also make me cringe with shame so I have to hit the off switch) I am actually embarrassed that it exists.

And I'm not a pensioner or anything, I watch porn (although far less frequently since I hit 30!) fully support people having a very liberated and adventurous sex life, and think even the recent legislation about covering lingerie on the front of FHM and such in petrol stations is preposterous. I think we are evolved apes and sex is the most natural thing in the world, so we should always embrace those feelings... but proper digi-shagging just makes me laugh out loud.

I would have been ashamed to admit to playing on it at 15, let alone at 25. Is it proper like.. Bash the buttons and fiddle the analog to control the hips or something?! What type of ridiculous weirdo's actually want to play that type of thing?

It doesn't even seem that bad when its bad 2d graphics. Like I could get behind a humorous bad-graphic sex scene in the first GTA followed by getting on the sidewalk and running a bunch of Hare Krishnas over with a Camero, but what possible point does this stuff have other than making me too embarrassed to buy it incase my friends think I'm off home to crack a digi-tug?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Why did they decide to do so?

Because it sounded to them like a good business decision that would bring them more money ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
Is it proper like.. Bash the buttons and fiddle the analog to control the hips or something?!

There is a video I linked to a few post above.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/623802.page
It is not explicit enough to be removed from Dakka.

Accounts been terminated it looks like mate. feth it Ill go on Youtube hang on...

MY EYES

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Why did they decide to do so?

Because it sounded to them like a good business decision that would bring them more money ?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:
Is it proper like.. Bash the buttons and fiddle the analog to control the hips or something?!

There is a video I linked to a few post above.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/623802.page
It is not explicit enough to be removed from Dakka.

How is not selling a product giving them more money?
Is Australia opposite land?

 Sigvatr wrote:
Meh, I'm used to her "He disagrees, must be a strawman!" scheme. Irrational behavior 101.

If this thread is any indication, and having read a number of others I would say it is, most of your posts are strawmen and you are running plays straight from "Opinion as fact" and "Misrepresentation, an introduction"

And as another white male it is my privilege to let you know this

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Meh, I'm used to her "He disagrees, must be a strawman!" scheme. Irrational behavior 101.

If this thread is any indication, and having read a number of others I would say it is, most of your posts are strawmen and you are running plays straight from "Opinion as fact" and "Misrepresentation, an introduction"

And as another white male it is my privilege to let you know this

Yeah I disagree with Sigavatr onsome issues and firmly agree on others, obviously because I am a sensible and educated gentleman so I like to think I can come to an unbiased view of each individual case in the ongoing dakka gender wars.

On the internet you do see plenty of needless black or whiting of an issue when it comes to arguments where there are a thousand shades of gray. The above back and forth is a classic example. You don't have to 100% support everything in a game to want to buy it, nor dislike something 100% to ignore it. Its fething obvious. I will play GTA happily, I don't like some aspects of it though. Ill just ignore the whole.. getting a chew off a hooker bit.

Just because it sold well, you cant say "Oh well 99.99% of people have no issue" because I guarantee that many people who happily bought it, will do the same, and skip that bit thinking "feth me, I'm 30 years old, I don't want to control a virtual hand on the back of some digi-prozzies head, not least because if the missus walks in to offer me a cup of tea and she sees how I spend my time infront of the Playstation I will die from embarrassment. In fact feth it I would rather she caught me getting a gobble off an actual prostitute in the kids bedroom"

Everything boils down to absolutes on here, I suppose because its the internet and people find it easier to be obnoxious. I always bring up politics and religion in the real world and people are nowhere near as aggressive when it comes to making a point. In the real world people sit down, drink cans, and then try to understand the others point of view. They don't firmly plant both feet in their neighbors garden and then utterly refuse to move an inch.

Mattyrm...your post actually made me lol. Well done on both your point and the humor.

 mattyrm wrote:
Everything boils down to absolutes on here, I suppose because its the internet and people find it easier to be obnoxious. I always bring up politics and religion in the real world and people are nowhere near as aggressive when it comes to making a point. In the real world people sit down, drink cans, and then try to understand the others point of view. They don't firmly plant both feet in their neighbors garden and then utterly refuse to move an inch.

I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.

I'm much happier as an Internet user now.

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Everything boils down to absolutes on here, I suppose because its the internet and people find it easier to be obnoxious. I always bring up politics and religion in the real world and people are nowhere near as aggressive when it comes to making a point. In the real world people sit down, drink cans, and then try to understand the others point of view. They don't firmly plant both feet in their neighbors garden and then utterly refuse to move an inch.

I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.

I'm much happier as an Internet user now.

What have you got against sunglasses? DON'T YOU WANT YOUR FRIENDS TO LOOK COOL?!

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Meh, I'm used to her "He disagrees, must be a strawman!" scheme. Irrational behavior 101.

If this thread is any indication, and having read a number of others I would say it is, most of your posts are strawmen and you are running plays straight from "Opinion as fact" and "Misrepresentation, an introduction"

And as another white male it is my privilege to let you know this

Nah, I just have a completely different point of view. It's fine to not like anything or such, and you're free to express your opinion. That's the micro level, though, and while it matters a lot to the individual, on the larger scale, noone cares. The game sold millions, it promoted extremely questionable content and blatantly catered to a certain audience. Rockstar doesn't give a damn about what a tiny group of people think, they're huge and just don't have to anymore. Realizing this hurts people's feelings because they don't want to acknowledge what happens above their heads. This goes for video games and other, similar products. Did McDonals decided to buff up their burgers after the "This is what it really looks like" campaign? Nah.

On this special matter, you have a tiny group of people who got a problem with those scenes. You got another group of people who enjoy those scenes (and that group is, safe to assume, heaps larger as in most teenagers) and then there's the, usual, giant group of people who just don't care. The latter can be found with pretty much every topic. Just take this very forum as an example and compare the amount of GW-hate and GW-love threads. The former make up the vast majority. And yet that is far from what the scene is like in real life.

There are tons of topics where one tiny, vocal minority wants to speak for a much larger group and tries to look big while actually being not of any importance on a larger scale. Like it or like it not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 His Master's Voice wrote:


I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.

So you went to not posting at all on the internet?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
How is not selling a product giving them more money?

Not sure, but the alternative is that they removed the game on ethical ground, so… really, they think it will give them more money .

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I have recently instituted a rule that prevents me from discussing any relevant issues unless I can see the eyes of the person I'm talking to.

Is a picture enough, or do you need videoconference?

 Sigvatr wrote:
So you went to not posting at all on the internet?

Relevant issues. Internet has trace issues of those anyway, so I'm not missing much.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Is a picture enough, or do you need videoconference?

Video conference of sufficient quality is grudgingly accepted.