General Discussion Forum

Giantkitty, I'm going to ignore the first half of your post. It's not because I don't respect what you have to say, I'm sure it's very intelligent and well thought out, but because it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, which I've been trying to point out.

I see them on the screen. Therefore they exist.

As ideas, yes. As images, yes. That's it.

Since they are treated as women , they can be objectionized, sexually or whatever.

I'd rather say that's the point, isn't it? I wouldn't want to take advantage of a real woman, because real women are alive and have feelings. A rendering of lifeless data I can use however I so please.

The problem is women walk into video game stores and see rows of games of women in bikinis.

If she finds it uncomfortable, it's her problem. No one is taking advantage of her.

Most female video game characters are  objectified and demeaned. These are sex-role stereotypes that youth are exposed to in real life.

Now this is another issue entirely. Kids shouldn't be learning about life through video games in the first place.
Unless the article was about gamers in general, in which case it's pretty incredible, making unreasonable generalizations about gamers. I'm not some impressionable kid.

You may be correct in only the most technical sense, but most other people can recognize what I mean by "objectification of women" they now

No, it's correct in the only real sense. Heh, the "magic moral fairy" isn't going to detract me from what is demonstratively true.

You're trying to prove a rule by making a bunch of exceptions.

No, you are trying to make a rule that doesn't exist.

Why the ones that are bigoted.

A game cannot be bigoted. A game doesn't have an opinion. A game can be made as a racist message and I can play it and laugh at the ignorance behind it.

They're pushing their philosophy, not just "fantasizing"

That's a good point. What about the political games that are trying to make a point?  Then we discuss those points, right? But that isn't the case here.

But creating it does (at least the ones I'm talking about). It's a product of their views. I know, games aren't living things, so they can't be "racist" in an ultra-literal sense, but it's the idea behind them. (oh and if you type <<"video game" racist>> you get 133,000 hits. Again people will know what's talked about and apply it however, even though they know that inanimate objects "don't have feelings" or "can't be

I was going to make this point earlier in your post, but I think this is the best place. It's not about objectification at all. It's not about racism. It's about people who are afraid of what other people have to say. This is moving away from the issue, a little bit, much like the journalism thing, but I'm not afraid of other peoples opinions. You'll note that I don't think this Kristen girl should be censored. She's just wrong. I'm all for playing games made by the KKK. Let them march up and down mainstreet, too, if they want to and file for a permit.

People tend to be afraid of ideas they disagree with. I strongly oppose racism, but I can't on my conscious sit here and tell you they don't have a right to speak. On the issue of sexual objects in fantasy, it's personal, on the issue of the KKK, it's social, but regardless people have a right (or should, IMO, have the right) to speak out about whatever they want. Now, racism hurts people. We should do our best to fight racism with logic. Oppression, trying to "shut the racists up" isn't going to do it. We should listen to people we disagree with because it isn't enough to know that we are right, we need to know why we are right.

To the issue at hand (you'll notice, I've forgotten the name of the game. It looked rather substandard to me) we're talking about something more personal. I think being a badass who kills everyone he doesn't like and fucks everything with tits would be a lot of fun. But I'm not that person. The idea of killing a real person is repulsive. The idea of females being sex machines without souls is a little depressing if you think about it. These are fantasy. They aren't attempting to say "hey, this is the real world" or "this is how we should be".

Just simply and oversimplification. Nothing like video games "are simply an..." anything.

No, it is the truth of the matter. Anything other than 'a harmless fantasy' is a construct out of your own mind.

>Giantkitty, I'm going to ignore the first half of your post. It's not because I don't respect what you have to say, I'm sure it's very >intelligent and well thought out, but because it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, which I've been trying to point out.

Then I'll ignore parts of your post, sorry but  Journal of Experimental Psychology article > Bellum
A journal like that doesn't let "imaginary issues" or "non-issues" such as "the objectification of women in video games" slip by. It's not someone's blog or thread posting, not a magazine, but a journal, which  is written and closely reviewed by experts (usually PhD's) in the field under strict rules. I showed how it is an "issue" (the article was about it, hence an issue - the author thought it was enough to do a study).  It's a real life example of the "objectification of women in video games" (remember you told me "Your stretching the issue, trying to make it something it isn't") Well , the article "is," and it isn't a "tooth fairy"  nor is it something  not in a "real sense" 
It's there whether you like it or not, ignore it all you want. Or is the issue at hand (whatever that is- you keep moving the goalposts) only what you want it to be?

>It's not about objectification at all

What is "it?" And not at all?

>It's about people who are afraid of what other people have to say

What is this "it" you're referring to? Objecting to something and fear are not necessarily the same thing, or are you the only person in the world who's "not afraid of other people's opinions?" You're trying to lump all the objectifiers into one group. Some people are afraid, some aren't.

>If she finds it uncomfortable, it's her problem. No one is taking advantage of her.

Then she can walk out of the store, disgusted, and the store lost a sale. Now it's an economic issue. Maybe it's only one girl in that store that does it, but since there are hundreds of stores across the nation, it makes it significant. See how now games that objectify women are more then "simply an expression of a fantasy that is separate from the real world." it's now a real economic issue, not a "construct out of your own mind."

[quoting Kristin from the first post]

>Obviously I’m NOT happy about the objectification of women in this game or how degrading it is. I actually nearly pulled the game >from our show until I realized this would be a PRIME opportunity for female gamers to show a united front and make developers >hear our voice - and realize that WE ARE here and aren’t going to take this bullpucky degradation quietly anymore.This is where I’m >hoping everyone can help me out. I’m going to be the host picking the audience questions. I would LOVE for you girls to chime in >with questions for the developer. You can watch the show here and email in questions to onthespot (at) gamespot (dot) com.

Note how she only said "nearly pulled the game from our show" then you go on saying things like:

"You'll note that I don't think this Kristen girl should be censored. She's just wrong"                                                                                       "but I can't on my conscious sit here and tell you they don't have a right to speak."                                                                          "Oppression, trying to "shut the racists up" isn't going to do it."

Three words: straw man argument

[Kristin again]

" I’m going to be the host picking the audience questions. I would LOVE for you girls to chime in with questions for the developer."

[you]

"We should listen to people we disagree with because it isn't enough to know that we are right, we need to know why we are right."

So you agree with her then? But then again, you said she was wrong.

Maybe she should try enjoying the female form as we do.

Warfare said:

"Linkyshinks said:

"On the evidence of this she has got her wish and the game has in fact been pulled, despite what she told me...

This week, we're going to be testing our agility and stamina with Mirror's Edge, ganging up on the Chimera again in the Resistance 2 Beta, and seeing our newly rebuilt house promptly destroyed by Gabe and Tycho in Penny Arcade Adventures Episode 2. Oh yeah, we're also defending the republic of Gallia in Valkyria Chronicles. Mix well with a cooking lesson, serve with a side of greens, and you'll have today's On the Spot!

...She told me last week it got pulled at the last moment, and that stuff like that happens all the time, the latter I think is true, however, If that was the case you would think they would show it today would you not.

I think all this would have played a part, I could never have seen her demo this game on Gamespot after what she said in her Blog about it, lol. How lame, dropping a fucking videogame over this feeble crap. Gamespot is so dead to me as far as the site is concerned, the people there are a different matter though.


"

The end......................or is it?"

If they don't show the game tonight that will be the end, they have dusted this crap under the carpet because they have no choice but to. If they showed the game now, and she will be demoing it as she does, people will lol when they see that shit because they know the back story. I made that clear to everyone I could over there...


EDIT:

They showed a fucking food feature, food!, I am serious, they had some fucking dude showing everyone how to make a fucking Veal dish for 5 minutes.

Someone fire that woman immediately. What a hypocritical bitch.