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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Though that said, I certainly see why they're bothered by a game which is nothing more than a poorly written power fantasy, where the devs made the poor decision to actively include a sex scene where you graphically (if in poor quality) pork a (female, of course, can't have gay sex) hooker and then allowing violence against said hooker afterwards, even rewarding it through the hooker dropping money.

Nice misrepresentation there

Everything I said was true. It's sad that the truth offends you.

This game is a power fantasy-- "poorly written" is subjective, to be sure, but it's pretty hard to argue it's not a power fantasy. The devs made the decision to actively include and code for a sex scene where you graphically pork a female hooker, as a participant rather than just watching it. And the devs also allow violence against said hooker afterwards, rewarding you for killing her by giving you in-game money.

All of these things are well established.

No. Nothing you said was true. You're parroting the same crap from the lie-and-misrepresentation-filled complaint that got the game banned in the first place.

So watch the video and then respond.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
No. Nothing you said was true.

Not only is what I said true, it's provably true.

I mean, just take this one: "The devs made the decision to actively include and code for a sex scene where you graphically pork a female hooker, as a participant rather than just watching it."

This is not only provably true, it's been advertised as a new feature for the game.

Are the game developers lying?

We know how GTA works. There can't really be a dispute about any of that because you know we know. I played GTA 5 I know about the hookers.

 Melissia wrote:
This is feminism. We might call the petitioners misaimed or misguided feminists, but I still think they're feminists.

That said, I very much disagree when the response to something stupid, tasteless, and misogynistic-- like GTA5-- is an instant "BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT" instead of looking at the underlying causes of the stupid, tasteless, and misogynistic thing.

That's because you are not a militant extremist.

At least this stupid gak DOES actually reward you for shagging prozzies and killing them, we argued at length about that video Anita Sarkeesian made because I called her a female version of Joel Osteen (cynical businesswoman that has more interest in making money than a cause) after seeing that stupid Hitman part where she drags the dead strippers around and dumps them in a suitcase even though the game actively punishes you for it!

She should have used this as an example, then I wouldn't have called her a cynical dishonest hack and we wouldn't have had an argument.

I definitely agree with you though, rushing to ban almost anything is usually counter-productive... Look at prohibition.

They definitely shouldn't reward you for things like this in games though.. if only because it makes no sense. In fact, you should lose health for tackling a hooker considering syphilis is particularly bad for your health (I hasten to add I do not speak from experience)

I swear my monitor is starting to crack from the waves of cognitive dissonance radiating off some of these posts.

 Chongara wrote:
I swear my monitor is starting to crack from the waves of cognitive dissonance radiating off some of these posts.

Phots or it didn't happen. (blows committed by hammer do not count as cognitive dissonance cracks)

My two cents:

The ban is silly as the series - at least the last GTA I played; I've stopped buying them in favour of Saint's Row with GTA IV and its bad, bad console-to-PC port - glorifies violence in general, thus the criticism comes off as shallow and uninformed, and may even be considered counter-productive to the actual controversies (referring to both the portrayal of women in general, as well as violence in general, as separate discussions on this game) by deflecting discussion away from them.

This thread is silly as well, for as predicted it's just the same old arguments by the same old posters about how feminism supposedly makes no sense and is full of lies, or how bad the poor misunderstood straight white males supposedly have it by getting called out on their privileges all the time. Honestly, I've seen these news a couple hours ago at work, and I knew instantly it would turn into a thread at dakka, and I knew the kind of posts I could expect clicking on it.

Then again, I suppose these things being discussed at all should mean something. I consider it unlikely that there will ever be a consensus within the current generation, as perceptions differ too much from one another to allow understanding (at least if dakka and similar comment outlets on the web are an indicator), but a debate actually happening means people started to get fed up with the status quo.

I actually find myself agreeing about GTA being a "power fantasy" game. The sandbox nature of it is intentionally designed to entertain the player by enabling them to commit random acts of violence in an increasingly graphical manner. Hell, I enjoyed playing the exact same way when I was younger, though in retrospect I must consider this to be juvenile and possibly even unhealthy. I disagree, however, that the violence targets women more than men, and I do recall my younger self happily butchering people regardless of their sex. That being said, I have absolutely no problem believing that people with a specific hatred against a certain race and/or gender may actively use these games to hunt down "preferred targets" (there are some sick videos on youtube; I'm sure you'll have no trouble thinking of keywords to find them if you are interested), and I do believe that the GTA series has "problems" with the portrayal of women in general, albeit not as glaring as certain other games.

It's a bit of a shame, because the last GTA game that I actually finished - San Andreas - had a pretty compelling story with some good characters (plus you actually played a black dude for a change, and yes, I do remember thinking that this was strange back then!).

Can't say that I'm shocked, Aussie's tend to get shafted (snicker) when it comes to violence in media, especially video games. Not saying that it's a totally, out of nowhere thing, but seriously...it's a game.

I think if I lived in a place where 99% of the gak living there was interested in killing me just because NATURE, violent video games wouldn't really be a thing to worry about.

Linky!

APG: Let’s talk about the “Death of Gamers” prediction that has been going around as of late. Why is it happening and how should gamers react?

Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers: The gaming industry is exploding right now. Developers are finding that almost every human activity can be turned into a video game — story telling, art appreciation, even psychotherapy and saving the planet. Games have a unique capacity to entertain, educate, and motivate people. We are only beginning to understand their power. Video games have never enjoyed much respect as an art form, but as gaming evolves, that could change. So I can understand why some critics would look with impatience at popular mass-market games like Grand Theft Auto.

But here is where these critics go wrong. Grand Theft Auto can co-exist with sensitive, literary games like Gone Home. It is not an either/or. Many gamers are angry because these cultural critics are not merely calling for greater creativity and diversity — they have declared war on gamer culture. Consider Leigh Alexander’s cri de coeur in Gamasutra. She declared that “gamers are over.” She spoke of gaming culture as a “petri dish” full of losers and deadbeats. I think “shitslingers” was her term. She has a vision of a more elevated gamer society — filled with decorous, gender-sensitive players. Games, she says, should be more like literature. “We want tragicomedy, vignette, musicals, dream worlds, family takes, ethnographies, abstract art. We will get this, because we’re creating culture now.”

If I were a gamer, I would say, fine, go ahead. Create your vignettes and your dream worlds. No one cares. Just please leave us alone.

@lynata:

Haven't you learned these topics are basically the equivalent of the off-topic forums? Well hopefully you will soon.

I find myself more hating the idea of feminism as a whole. My reason is that it's about making things equal for women and not men or at least better where there's a perceived injustice towards the woman but not the man. A part of it is because it would be better just to call it equality to make everything equal. Why even leave men out of the equation or make them feel like the aggressors. Possibly they wouldn't feel the need to be aggressive if the movement was not only called something else but a little more helpful towards the men and less demanding of them specifically rather than asking them (it's more a problem when you demand than ask politely for something). I mean there are issues with equality there's no doubt. That said even if you're right and women tend to have it worse than men then why is it women getting things much, much better a worse deal then men getting things only a little better for it in your view?

Why not just call it equality and be done with it? Even then nobody is equal. It's part of living in the world. Deal with it. There's always going to be somebody better looking, with more money or seemingly a better life than you. It isn't fair but life's not fair. In a sense these girl gamers that complain have plenty of privileges too (they live in a first world nation, they live in a country that's good to women by world standards and holy crap i'd kill to have a gamer girlfriend they seem so few and far between). They are fewer than the male gamers and yet get more attention whether good or bad. I find it a little odd we'd have to bow down to the demands of not just fewer gamers which are gamer girls but also a very broad category. I mean who's to say every girl likes the same games (perhaps they like 'hello kitty'?, shooters, bejewelled or something) or that making girls as more main characters in some games would even influence them enough to take part of those games (maybe most girls don't like warhammer believe it or not). I mean how much did that work for the 'sisters of battle' in wh40k (probably a bit but probably not enough to justify them being made). Oddly enough girls seemed to like tyranids and orks more in general which are very gender neutral if anything (or elves for being colorful).

Also please don't say i'm privileged. To an extent yes but i was often socially awkward like possibly many of you (warhammer isn't exactly a super popular non-nerdy thing). People also haven't waited on me hand and foot like some of the more attractive women seem to do to their significant others back when i was in high school. Also as for privilege my half sister whom i lived with for a couple years starting at 19 got her kids and myself to work around the yard. They were rich yes but it's not always privilege when they get you to work for your money and have to work on a yard large enough to be a small zelda adventure.

---------

More on topic i don't really particularly like shooters but everything appeals to different groups. I don't feel any need to destroy them because they want a little juvenile fun. It's like you can't do anything without getting judged. I'd get into it more but sometimes i want to watch an action movie for the sake of watching an action movie. I get to watch stuff blow up and i don't need people to tear it apart for lack of story. As for the hooker live sex scene it's about knowing your audience. It's kind of like how AXE shower gel generally appeals to d-bags or is at least marketed with them in mind.

Oh and on the topic of game controversies i take them only a little more serious than celebrity break-ups.

Or perhaps a shopped version that cuts to the point a little cleaner:

It's australia. I'm honestly surprised that the game wasn't banned outright*, but give it time.

*not saying i think it should be banned, just that i'm surprised it wasn't

It's a super dumb move.

It's slacktivist feminism at its best. You hype something in the name of feminism to get attention, well-knowing that you will neither change nor achieve anyhing besides direly needed self-affirmation.

This in itself isn't a terrible thing as intelligent people can see through it, but the problem is that what this *does* is generate a negative image of feminism among youngsters who get that false image of what feminism is about and get their negative image reinforced.

Aren't most games power fantasies?
Saying GTA V is a power fantasy is a bit like saying "this water is wet!" imo.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's a super dumb move.

It's slacktivist feminism at its best. You hype something in the name of feminism to get attention, well-knowing that you will neither change nor achieve anyhing besides direly needed self-affirmation.

This in itself isn't a terrible thing as intelligent people can see through it, but the problem is that what this *does* is generate a negative image of feminism among youngsters who get that false image of what feminism is about and get their negative image reinforced.

Well put. It was what I was ineptly trying to say.

 Torga_DW wrote:
It's australia. I'm honestly surprised that the game wasn't banned outright*, but give it time.

*not saying i think it should be banned, just that i'm surprised it wasn't

I too was surprised, especially since they'd already banned Saints Row IV (well, originally banned it), but that's a whole other story.

I personally don't enjoy the GTA series as a whole because of the story mode (though I do think mayhem of GTA V multiplayer looks fun from videos I've seen on the YouTubes) but this is ridiculous.

My god, HBMC with yet another hilarious post...you sir win the internets for the day!

Seriously though, I choked on hot chocolate on the last comic.

GTA allows you to kill anyone in the game. Male or female. It's not "anti woman", it's "anti everyone". Address the real issues, not the adjusted ones. Yes, you can bang a hooker. Then do the same violence to her as you can to everyone else. personally, I find it boring as hell, but have friends who love it.

That is exactly the point, timetowaste. It's the same mechanism (kill civilian, get cash) for every civilian in the game, not just hookers. It's just one specific example picked out for populistic reasons.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
GTA allows you to kill anyone in the game. Male or female. It's not "anti woman"

This so-called point has been addressed so many times, and yet people still bring it up as if it's relevant. Yes, there is a distinct difference between a game mechanic where you pay a pimp's sex slaves for sex to gain health, and then kill them afterwards for money, and a game mechanic where you just get money for killing people. That difference imakes the former rather creepier and more abusive than the latter.

HBMC's inflammatory trolling is also irrelevant. Accusing people of being feminazis is neither subtle nor clever.

Isn't that two mechanics?
Mechanic one is the prostitution, which applies to prostitutes.

Mechanic two is the murder of NPCs to acquire their funds. The prostitute happens to be a NPC.

These mechanics happen to interact in an...unsettling way.

 Melissia wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
GTA allows you to kill anyone in the game. Male or female. It's not "anti woman"

This so-called point has been addressed so many times, and yet people still bring it up as if it's relevant. Yes, there is a distinct difference between a game mechanic where you pay a pimp's sex slaves for sex to gain health, and then kill them afterwards for money, and a game mechanic where you just get money for killing people. That difference imakes the former rather creepier and more abusive than the latter.

HBMC's inflammatory trolling is also irrelevant. Accusing people of being feminazis is neither subtle nor clever.

I don't think there are pimps. If there were, then there might be more consequences to killing hookers.

I'd offer that the game-world is marginally more progressive than ours. In-game prostitution, by itself, runs no risk of LEO trouble. Murder, OTOH, does. AFAIK, there is no "pimp NPC. So GTA characters live in a world where hookers are self employed entrepreneurs that ply their legal trade and are offered the same protection from crime as the rest of society.

I can get behind that.

feeder wrote:
I'd offer that the game-world is marginally more progressive than ours

Hahaha... no. It's a pretty backwards violent world where might makes right. Makes for an action setting that could be fun (but probably won't because it's GTA), but it does not make for a place I'd want to actually live.

Also, a lot of "freelance" prostitutes aren't in much better of a situation than a pimp's sex slaves.

feeder wrote:
I'd offer that the game-world is marginally more progressive than ours. In-game prostitution, by itself, runs no risk of LEO trouble. Murder, OTOH, does. AFAIK, there is no "pimp NPC. So GTA characters live in a world where hookers are self employed entrepreneurs that ply their legal trade and are offered the same protection from crime as the rest of society.

I can get behind that.

I disagree. Crime goes virtually unpunished as you get out of jail all the time, avoiding a killing spree is possible by hiding in a backyard, weapons are easily obtainable etc. I agree with Melissia that it's a "power makes right" world and that, fortunately, isn't how reality works (mostly).

And this is why I prefer Saints Row 3 and 4: just good ol' crazy insane violence for the sake of crazy insane violence.

And a giant dildo baseball bat..

Dubstep gun. Woop Woop. Saint's Row 4 was awesome - running up buildings, gliding, jumping all over the place...all that it was lacking was flying.

 Melissia wrote:

feeder wrote:
I'd offer that the game-world is marginally more progressive than ours

Hahaha... no. It's a pretty backwards violent world where might makes right. Makes for an action setting that could be fun (but probably won't because it's GTA), but it does not make for a place I'd want to actually live.

Also, a lot of "freelance" prostitutes aren't in much better of a situation than a pimp's sex slaves.

Agreed, the world is pretty backwards, but its been like this for a very long time and shows no signs of changing. Meanwhile going after a computer game instead of the real thing is somehow moralistic? Art imitates life - focus on the cause of the problems and the symptoms will go away. Games like this are not the cause of the problems.