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.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Meanwhile going after a computer game instead of the real thing is somehow moralistic?

Ah, so it's the old "you can't do more than one thing" argument, then.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Games like this are not the cause of the problems.

They are both a symptom AND a cause, as it reinforces the machismo nonsense that it embraces, and tells you this is a good thing.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Stupid Twitter, turning text into an image…
So, you cannot have a female character that is drunk, or else it will be considered sexist? What is this affirmation based on, because I cannot think of any female character being deemed sexist because she was a drunk. Actually, I cannot think of a female character being a drunk anyway. A female character being a mentally disturbed soldier would be deemed sexist? Show me any evidence of that. Because I know one game which entirely revolve on a female character that is not only literally insane, but also locked into an asylum for the whole duration of the game, and it was not deemed sexist by anyone.
And that ending of Guybrush, why does it work? Because it is a subversion of a classic trope. If you consider Galbrush, it would not be a subversion of a classic trope, not until we get the non-subverted version into a bunch of games.
Really, it is not that hard to understand.
Get the hero out first, and then the anti-hero and all the subversions will follow. Get thousand of fearless soldiers with ovaries of steel that kill without remorse or second thought to accomplish whatever mission their superior assign to them, and suddenly, having a mentally disturbed soldier who's mind is unraveling as she walks through the battlefield takes a whole new meaning than if the only female ever featured as a walking the hell of modern battlefield is insane while all the male soldiers that have been depicted as walking the hell of modern battlefield are depicted as unflinching though guys.
In other word, start using the SMBC method of gender determination for all your characters, and nobody in their right mind will ever accuse you of racism.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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:

So, they are asking Christina “I never played a video game and I do not care about them” Sommers about video games. Recipe for a success .

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
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:

So, they are asking Christina “I never played a video game and I do not care about them” Sommers about video games. Recipe for a success .

Well to be fair the perspective of an outsider can be a valuable thing. They will notice things and ask questions about elements people immersed in games might not think about.

nomotog wrote:
Well to be fair the perspective of an outsider can be a valuable thing. They will notice things and ask questions about elements people immersed in games might not think about.

They are valuable if they are only observations. If they are verdicts, they are worthless for any fruitful discussion. Would you let your living room get decorated by a blind man?

 Sigvatr wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Well to be fair the perspective of an outsider can be a valuable thing. They will notice things and ask questions about elements people immersed in games might not think about.

They are valuable if they are only observations. If they are verdicts, they are worthless for any fruitful discussion. Would you let your living room get decorated by a blind man?

A blind man might do better then me to be honest and you know I can always rearrange anything if It doesn't work out. I feel like you might be referring to something that your not saying though.

^i think that tweet sums it up perfectly. Equality through discrimination.

 Melissia wrote:
Ah, so it's the old "you can't do more than one thing" argument, then.

No its the old "how is this in any way related to the actual problem" argument. Banning a R18+ game isn't going to fix the problems, its not going to come close. This sort of thing is somehow fine in movies, music and books, but put it in a game and son you've crossed the line.

 Melissia wrote:
They are both a symptom AND a cause, as it reinforces the machismo nonsense that it embraces, and tells you this is a good thing.

Its an inanimate object. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Spoons don't make people fat. Games don't make people act them out in real life.

The reward for killing a hooker after sleeping with her in the game are no different than not sleeping with her and killing her anyway. It doesn't say anything, other than that its a violent game. If someone doesn't like it, they probably shouldn't play it. Saying that its the cause of problems in society is laughable - these things have been going on long before computers were even invented.

 Torga_DW wrote:
^i think that tweet sums it up perfectly

I think that tweet is massively ignorant and stupid.

It attacks a parody of feminism because the author realizes he has no actual argument otherwise. It's just fething pathetic, and it's even more pathetic that people cite it as if it's saying something deep or important. Its intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.

 Torga_DW wrote:
No its the old "how is this in any way related to the actual problem" argument. Banning a R18+ game isn't going to fix the problems, its not going to come close. This sort of thing is somehow fine in movies, music and books, but put it in a game and son you've crossed the line.

You should re-read this conversation. I haven't supported banning it, and in fact opposed the ban. Doesn't mean I don't see GTA as the trashy game it is, or that I don't recognize the problematic messages it sends to the children and adults that play it (and yes, children play it)

 Torga_DW wrote:
Its an inanimate object

If this paragraph had a point, it failed to make it. The bible is an inanimate object as well. It's still had a massive impact on society. GTA won't have as big of an impact to be sure, but it HAS an impact, however small.

GTA has had a huge impact on games.

Indeed it has.

What a surprise to see how this thread turned out. I've mostly-ignored almost all of "gamergate" because the crusaders on both sides appear to almost all be a collection of terrible people.

While I disagree with some things that Anita says, I enjoy her videos and think she has some interesting points to make. I just wish she'd do her research a little better, since she unfortunately omits information or twists facts in order to make her (opinion) points a bit too often.

The moron behind the "death of gamers" article is simply someone trying for a bit of controversy and attention, and seems to have gotten it.

I wouldn't give a feth about any of this, if it hadn't resulted in self-righteous uninformed people starting a petition so that a collection of dickheads managed to make two of the largest retailers in the country pull a game that's been out for a year from their shelves. Then again, people who want the game still have plenty of choices, and I picked up my own and my wife's copies without an issue already.

And yes, kids play it. But that's a fault of lazy or disinterested parenting. I'm an adult, and I presume that you (Melissa, for this bit of my post) are as well - and I certainly don't want my adult R18+ rated (by the Federal Government, not some industry-run ESRB) entertainment defined or regulated by the fact that some kiddywinks play it due to either the ignorance or indifference of their parents. (And I know quite a few who do.)

I do find it amusing that the rather rapey GoT or 50 Shades are both things that Target and KMart continue to think are fine to continue selling. But then, moral crusaders are never strangers to hypocrisy, are they?

 Azazelx wrote:
The moron behind the "death of gamers" article is simply someone trying for a bit of controversy and attention, and seems to have gotten it.

You never actually read the article in question, then. It wasn't an attempt at controversy, but rather, a congratulatory article-- an article saying games and gamers are now mainstream, and the stereotypes that once defined gaming are diminishing. And that devs should take note of this.

I wonder if people will just look at video games as what they are instead of using them as a soapbox to spout their rhetoric. Neither side ever makes an headway and both end up falling back on the same arguments; it all sounds like a very broken record.

 Frankenberry wrote:
I wonder if people will just look at video games as what they are

Which is what people are doing, so I fail to see your point.

 Melissia wrote:
It attacks a parody of feminism because the author realizes he has no actual argument otherwise. It's just fething pathetic, and it's even more pathetic that people cite it as if it's saying something deep or important. Its intellectual dishonesty is disgusting.

Its an accurate portrayal of stereotypes in real life. He was right - if galbrush threepwood had been released, some people's heads would have spontaneously exploded. The situation is pathetic, but that's how the world operates.

 Melissia wrote:
You should re-read this conversation. I haven't supported banning it, and in fact opposed the ban. Doesn't mean I don't see GTA as the trashy game it is, or that I don't recognize the problematic messages it sends to the children and adults that play it (and yes, children play it)

My apologies, i wasn't intending to imply you personally, i was referring to target (and probably should have said that) in regards to the ban. That children are playing the game is highly indicative of the source of the problems existing outside and separate to the game - children aren't supposed to be playing it. The influence on the children (who may grow up to do bad things) isn't coming from the game it's coming from the parents/friends that are allowing the child to play in the first place. What else are these parents allowing/not allowing their children to do? What kind of examples are they setting? This is where the problems stem from, not a computer game that has a: 'illegal to sell to children' label on it.

 Melissia wrote:
If this paragraph had a point, it failed to make it. The bible is an inanimate object as well. It's still had a massive impact on society. GTA won't have as big of an impact to be sure, but it HAS an impact, however small.

You provide a good example. The bible says: thou shalt not kill, and yet people do it anyway. The old testament had passages like: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Banning the old testament wouldn't prevent these things from occuring. Everything has an impact, but this game doesn't have a relevant one. People don't like that these things are occurring and fair enough. But shooting the messenger won't change anything.

 Torga_DW wrote:
He was right - if galbrush threepwood had been released, some people's heads would have spontaneously exploded.

Pointless, baseless speculation. This wouldn't have happened.

 Torga_DW wrote:
The influence on the children (who may grow up to do bad things) isn't coming from the game

That's exactly where it comes from, however. Just like drunkenness comes from alcohol.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Everything has an impact, but this game doesn't have a relevant one.

In the video game world, the Grand Theft Auto series is one of the most influential, both for how devs expect to make sandbox games, and for how gamers expect games to work-- including callous, thoughtless violence.

I always thought this sort of behavior was more in line with robbing a shopkeeper after buying stuff to get your money back. I can see how the combination of having an explicit sex scene with this sort of behavior may rub some the wrong way but I don't think GTA should be banned. Prostitutes are an exploited group of women and some are forced into this line of work. Not only is the player abating the exploitation of these unfortunate souls but they are shooting them afterwards too. I can see how that would come across as exceptionally cruel to a lot of folks. But, I don't believe that makes GTA misogynistic. It's just a combination of game mechanics that produces unfortunate implications. Perhaps in the future Rockstar could call the player out on their cruel behavior.


I do think the first person sex scenes are juvenile attempts at stirring a bit of controversy to make their game relevant again.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I always thought this sort of behavior was more in line with robbing a shopkeeper after buying stuff to get your money back. I can see how the combination of having an explicit sex scene with this sort of behavior may rub some the wrong way but I don't think GTA should be banned. Prostitutes are an exploited group of women and some are forced into this line of work. Not only is the player abating the exploitation of these unfortunate souls but they are shooting them afterwards too. I can see how that would come across as exceptionally cruel to a lot of folks. But, I don't believe that makes GTA misogynistic. It's just a combination of game mechanics that produces unfortunate implications. Perhaps in the future Rockstar could call the player out on their cruel behavior.


I do think the first person sex scenes are juvenile attempts at stirring a bit of controversy to make their game relevant again.

Do you get your money back for killing a shop owner? One of the big difference is that attacking a shopkeeper is more risky because you will get a wanted level and or attacked. (It's different in every game the kind of response you get.)

 TheCustomLime wrote:
But, I don't believe that makes GTA misogynistic.

Just because it's not intentional doesn't mean it's not misogynistic.

Thoughtless bigotry isn't better than intentional, when the end result is the same.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I do think the first person sex scenes are juvenile attempts at stirring a bit of controversy to make their game relevant again.

Oh, definitely.

 Melissia wrote:

 Frankenberry wrote:
I wonder if people will just look at video games as what they are

Which is what people are doing, so I fail to see your point.

Of course you would, it doesn't align with yours so naturally, feigning ignorance is the only proper response.

 Melissia wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
The moron behind the "death of gamers" article is simply someone trying for a bit of controversy and attention, and seems to have gotten it.

You never actually read the article in question, then. It wasn't an attempt at controversy, but rather, a congratulatory article-- an article saying games and gamers are now mainstream, and the stereotypes that once defined gaming are diminishing. And that devs should take note of this.

I have actually read it. And it is indeed in part an attempt to stir up some controversy. But feel free to ascribe things to me that you have no idea about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
I can see how the combination of having an explicit sex scene

It's not an explicit sex scene.

Maybe GTA should have had male sex workers too, just to level the playing field

...or, maybe, 99.9% of all players don't give a damn because it's a non-issue blown out of proportion by modern internet / SJW trolls.

Just maybe.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Of course you would, it doesn't align with yours so naturally, feigning ignorance is the only proper response.

People are "looking at video games as what they are". What's what caused this thread to begin with. Many people just came to a different conclusion than you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:
...or, maybe, 99.9% of all players

There are more players than just you, and you don't speak for anyone but yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azazelx wrote:
I have actually read it.

Then you shouldn't have come to this conclusion:

 Azazelx wrote:
And it is indeed in part an attempt to stir up some controversy.

Because it was a celebratory post. There was no indication at all of any intent to stir up controversy.

 Azazelx wrote:
It's not an explicit sex scene.

Yes it is. You're controlling the main character from first person view as you pork a hooker-- controlling them in the sex act itself. That is explicit. It's explicit enough that I really don't want to link to a vid as I think that'll violate Dakka's rules.

Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the hp mechanic in GTAV was tied to having consensual sex with a paid sex worker. Not beating, mauling, maiming or killing said sex worker. Consensual sex.

I mean, the concept of increasing your resistance to shotgun shells by having sex is silly, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. There doesn't seem to be any element of sexual abuse involved, unless one considers prostitution to be a form of sexual abuse (which it obviously can be, when a third party is involved).

What am I missing here?

 Melissia wrote:
Many people just came to a different conclusion than you.

(...)

Then you shouldn't have come to this conclusion

Too good to pass up.

 Melissia wrote:
It's explicit enough that I really don't want to link to a vid as I think that'll violate Dakka's rules.

Let me do that for you then:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/623802.page
If I get banned because linking to another post in Dakka that has already been seen by moderators, it would not make sense, so I am pretty confident it is not against the rules .

 His Master's Voice wrote:
Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the hp mechanic in GTAV was tied to having consensual sex with a paid sex worker. Not beating, mauling, maiming or killing said sex worker. Consensual sex.

I mean, the concept of increasing your resistance to shotgun shells by having sex is silly, sure, but that's kind of beside the point. There doesn't seem to be any element of sexual abuse involved, unless one considers prostitution to be a form of sexual abuse (which it obviously can be, when a third party is involved).

What am I missing here?

That a lot of players will kill the hookers they have sex with to get their money back. It's like a GTA tradition.

nomotog wrote:
That a lot of players will kill the hookers they have sex with to get their money back. It's like a GTA tradition.

My wife quite often does this when she plays. Neither of us were particularly comfortable with a lot of Trevor's arc though.

 Melissia wrote:
There are more players than just you, and you don't speak for anyone but yourself.

I do. Looking at the sales numbers of all former GTA games where it was possible and the fact that the number of people who actually complained about it being possible being tiny, I can, with a clear conscience, say that it's a tiny, tiny problem most people do not care about as they prefer what might be the best game of the decade.

 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.

 Melissia wrote:
Just because someone buys something does not mean that they have no problems with it.

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

You might disagree with some decisions and not like them. The developer, however, doesn't care most of the time. Some indies do, most give a damn. If a game sells as well as GTA V, then Rockstar doesn't give the tiniest damn about what a tiny, tiny minority might think.

If you buy a game, that's +1 game sold. If a game sells extraordinarily well, that means, to the publisher, that people absoluteley loved it and they'll strife to repeat the success by doing the same. GTA, Call of Duty etc.