duxup's forum posts

#1 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -
Aas said:
"0kAmui0 said:
"We're starting a new chapter of Max's life with this game," said Sam Houser, Founder of Rockstar Games. "This is Max as we've never seen him before, a few years older, more world-weary and cynical than ever. We experience the downward spiral of his life after the events of Max Payne 2 and witness his last chance for salvation."



Huh, I thought that was the plot for Max Payne 2..."
Yeah what is up with that?   Just some PR line slapped in there I guess.
#2 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -

Ricardo Montalban.

Ok he didn't work for GS, and he's dead, but still...

#3 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -

That is both horrific and somehow awesome at the same time, a bit more horrific though.

#4 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -

I own 3 of the top 10, but damn Nintendo must be rolling in it.

#5 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -

I would have been shocked if there was a whole new GTA game so soon.

#6 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -
Jayge said:
"duxup said:
"Jayge said:
"duxup said:
"I don't see how wearing a bikini and building a portfolio is somehow automatically objectifying yourself.

Where is the line?  Shorts three inches above the knee and it is objectifying?  Wearing makeup?  Showing ankle?

"
You continue to lack any comprehension of my point. Read the posts again."
So her wearing a bikini is irrelevant?"
In some ways yes and in some ways no. It can be assumed that she wasn't modeling specifically to sell bikinis, or she wouldn't be building a portfolio. She also wouldn't be posing in front of a Joust machine. It's logical to assume she was doing something more related to her own personal interests, be them economic or for pleasure, or both. The fact that she was willing to get into a bikini (one of the things she seems to go off on the game for) and pose for pictures that offer nothing but possible masturbatory aid (I see no advertisements or other reasons for its existence) while continuing to blast the game for its "objectification" is completely illogical and far beyond the normal human's general personal hypocrisy tolerance."

It think much of this thread is a bad joke.  Someone on some site says something another user doesn't like and runs to a competing site to get upset about it.  Then they turn into some fuddy duddy who can't deal with bikinis except to think that someone photographed in one is objectifying themself all just so they can pull out the "hypocrisy" battle cry and ignore any actual argument made about about the game in question.

The idea that because someone is photographed wearing a bikini (oh my) then they can't argue about a game objectivying women is silly at face value, but that's the core of many arguments made here.

#7 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -
Jayge said:
"duxup said:
"I don't see how wearing a bikini and building a portfolio is somehow automatically objectifying yourself.

Where is the line?  Shorts three inches above the knee and it is objectifying?  Wearing makeup?  Showing ankle?

"
You continue to lack any comprehension of my point. Read the posts again."
So her wearing a bikini is irrelevant?
#8 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -
Jayge said:
"duxup said:
"As far as I'm concerned someone can wear a bikini to sell bikini's or whatever they're selling and still be a person and not be objectified even if someone takes a pic or gives them money.  If all someone sees is the bikini and can't get over it, that's their problem.   The model still has a right to object if they see something that objectifies women.

If that is a double standard that sounds like a recipe for people walking around in long dresses not showing their ankles because if they did they'd be objectifying them self for some advantage be it socially or if someone takes a pic monetarily.

"
My point is that women and men will always be objectified, in manners supremely uncontrollable by any method besides the one you described in your last sentence. You can't just go around parading in a bikini (she stated it was taken for a magazine/her portfolio. If she's building her portfolio, what else is that but objectification of herself?) and then complain about a game that has women parading around in a bikini. Nobody wears a bikini to play Joust."
I don't see how wearing a bikini and building a portfolio is somehow automatically objectifying yourself.

Where is the line?  Shorts three inches above the knee and it is objectifying?  Wearing makeup?  Showing ankle?

#9 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -

It is a video game movie, this should surprise nobody.

#10 Posted by duxup (372 posts) -


Jayge said:
"duxup said:
"clubsandwich said:
"IMO people can both wear shorts and a bikini and take issue with what they think of as objectifying women."
that's double standards to me. "
How so?

"
It's not double standards for someone to hang out in their back yard and wear a bikini top and shorts (or whatever). It is a huge double standard to model with a skimpy outfit on like that *purely* to have your picture on display in a magazine, solely for money. She has no problem objectifying herself for money, apparently, but the second she decides she doesn't like the look of something, she goes and pulls it. That's how."
As far as I'm concerned someone can wear a bikini to sell bikini's or whatever they're selling and still be a person and not be objectified even if someone takes a pic or gives them money.  If all someone sees is the bikini and can't get over it, that's their problem.   The model still has a right to object if they see something that objectifies women.

If that is a double standard that sounds like a recipe for people walking around in long dresses not showing their ankles because if they did they'd be objectifying them self for some advantage be it socially or if someone takes a pic monetarily.