joshwent's forum posts

#1 Edited by joshwent (1777 posts) -

@marokai said:

The reaction from some who desperately wanted Naoto and Kanji to be something they actually weren't plays right into the message of the game. People always want you to be something that you aren't or don't want to be. People can only see black and white. And hey, isn't that super stupid that we can't just be?

Brilliant. It's hard for me to comprehend how people who insist their analysis is true can't see that they're doing exactly what the game is criticising. The offense comes from folks who know Kanji is gay, so they then blame Atlus for shying away from that indisputable fact. Not accepting that maybe Kanji, as a human being like all of us, is infinitely more complicated than their desired singular label.

I completely understand and agree with the hope for big games featuring characters from underrepresented groups, but a lot of that mentality also seems to come from a strangely narrow-minded place. As if a character who fits into certain categories represents all of the other people who just happen to have the same attributes. That if Kanji firmly stated his homo/bi-sexuality, that's somehow a win for every gay person. It turns a fully three dimensional human into a walking label. Lara Croft can't just be a good character, she has to be a Strong Female Character. And as such, if your Lara acts in some way that isn't superhumanly heroic, smart, brave, etc., your game is sexist.

I believe the more the media at large insist on their specific ideal image of a type of person being represented, and therefore critique and disparage any alternative portrayals, the more they actually push those potential characters away from games.

@chrissedoff: When I was younger, despite being attracted only to girls, I began to think I was gay because of my interests, my physicality (or lack thereof), and a few other things. Now that I'm an adult, I'm still open to a relationship with a man if I was ever drawn to it, but I've never felt an urge towards anyone of that sex, and I've had many satisfying relationships with women. So despite my lack of any traditionally macho qualities, I label myself straight.

If I made a game about that real-life confusion, would it be "problematic" as well?

#2 Edited by joshwent (1777 posts) -

They should have got Kraftwerk to do it...

#3 Posted by joshwent (1777 posts) -

@duder_me: This might not be the best place to ask this kind of question. Breaking DRM is potentially illegal, and it's frowned upon here to discuss that kind of stuff.

#4 Edited by joshwent (1777 posts) -

@aetheldod said:

Also what western rpg does not "sexualize women" using your jrpg is sexist definition? All of them have the same trappings as jrpgs so dont come here saying that western media is less so.

"Trappings" could mean a lot of things, but in the West, we're seriously behind on the arbitrary up-skirt shot quota.

As for the thread, I'd give another nod to Fire Emblem: Awakening. I've only played a little (and it might not be the kind of RPG that the OP is asking for, but if you're looking for characters that are more than eye-candy, that's a good choice.

@anund said:

Is objectification of women really sexism?

The broad current-wave feminist claims of objectification is about as rational and scientific as geocentrism.

#5 Posted by joshwent (1777 posts) -

Does it use touch controls to lean forward and back, or do you have to tilt your device back and forth?

It's two "buttons" on the bottom left for leaning and two others on the bottom right for gas/reverse. The controls are nice and responsive. I don't even think tilt controls are an option, which is good for a game like this where even a slight lean can make you miss a jump or flip out of control.

#6 Posted by joshwent (1777 posts) -

Just started playing yesterday... and it's awesome. I love the world, the characters, the mission types, the upgrades, and the controls it's all great. And it's a really interesting and unique take on the Trials formula. Unfortunately, F2P has killed it.

I've just got to the point where your bike is simply is too slow to win in competitive races or to get silver medals, and the upgrade cost even with items is crazy, forcing you to pay for coins or diamonds(or whatever they're called). And since there's (of course) no way to just pay one amount to actually buy the game and bypass the bullshit, I'm gonna have to put it down having payed $0.

I hope, soon, devs and publishers will at least try to give those of us an option to just buy good games again, instead of trying to manipulate us into unwittingly spending money exponentially until interest is lost. It's a huge, constant shame to see a really great game like this just completely sabotaged by a disgusting business structure.

#7 Posted by joshwent (1777 posts) -

This is probably a good question to bring to the attention of @rorie. I hear he's got faith... of the heart(bleed bug).

#8 Posted by joshwent (1777 posts) -

Ahhh, takes me back to good ol' November...

"Even though most people don't have this problem and the consensus is that speeds are relatively pretty great, my PS4/XOne download is taking a long time. The PS4/XOne SUCKS!!!"

Good times.

#9 Edited by joshwent (1777 posts) -

@jasonr86 said:

Research like this allows non-hobbyists to be more empathetic which is incredibly important.

Potentially, yes. But it could also easily mislead the majority of people who only react to headlines that say, "Aggression from video games 'linked to incompetence'", to conclude, "Well fuck. I thought it was only those violent video games that could turn my darling child into a murderer. These studies show that they can become aggressive playing any video game!"

And I really can't expect most politicians (who are utterly ignorant about and afraid of games and are always looking for easy ways to make themselves look necessary and compassionate by, say, "protecting children") to read a study showing that even a game like Tetris can make kids aggressive, and become more empathetic as you suggest.

In a better place, science would be used as a revelatory tool to increase understanding. Where we are now, it's used to draw concrete conclusions and form opinions. And even with studies like this that are trying to find rational explanations for specific behavior, those arbitrary conclusions from the non-experts in power can be pretty destructive.

Still though, as I said above, it's cool this stuff is happening. My beef is more just about the persistence of ignorance, rather than any qualms with these studies or scientists themselves.

#10 Posted by joshwent (1777 posts) -

@discoman said:

If you do some reading you'd realize that not every soldier was a party member.

If you'd do a little reading of the thread that you're posting in, you'd realize that everyone has already completely agreed on that point.