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.

 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.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *pause* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 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:
I know you like to pretend that humans are some kind of monolithic group that hates women

 Bullockist wrote:
Man i want mattrym back on OT, i miss his level headedness coupled with his political incorrectness.

Yeah, I missed that, I arrived when he was already banned if I am not mistaken.

 Bullockist wrote:
You're my kind of guy * bromance*.

There is an XKCD on that. As always.

 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.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and

 mattyrm wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
The problem is people getting all over-defensive and, frankly, stupid.

Well we agree then.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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):

 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 think it's fair to say none of us can win.

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
I know you like to pretend that humans are some kind of monolithic group that hates women

 Bullockist wrote:
Man i want mattrym back on OT, i miss his level headedness coupled with his political incorrectness.

Yeah, I missed that, I arrived when he was already banned if I am not mistaken.

 Bullockist wrote:
You're my kind of guy * bromance*.

There is an XKCD on that. As always.

 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.

 Bullockist wrote:

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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Slarg232 wrote:
I am not upset.

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:
Ok, first of all, why is it a bad idea?

Are you asking me why it is a bad idea to shoehorn people on specific roles based on their genders?

 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?

 Slarg232 wrote:
Also, why should people stop using Tropes?

Not tropes in general. Some very specific tropes.

 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.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
I am not upset.

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.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Ok, first of all, why is it a bad idea?

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?

Why can we not talk about it?

 Slarg232 wrote:
Also, why should people stop using Tropes?

Not tropes in general. Some very specific tropes.

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.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Why can we not talk about it?

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?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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.

 Slarg232 wrote:
Why can we not talk about it?

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 .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Misogyny in gaming just doesn't exist in my area

I think actually you meant “I have never noticed misogyny in gaming in my area”, which is pretty damn different.

There are gamergate "journalism websites". I just wouldn't recommended reading most of them.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 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 .


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Misogyny in gaming just doesn't exist in my area

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.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:


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.

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?

 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.

Have you done this game?

 LordofHats wrote:

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:

 LordofHats wrote:

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

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

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.