Nexas's forum posts

#1 Edited by Nexas (626 posts) -

@jaqen_hghar said:

The disclaimer isn't even the issue. The sad truth is that if you write a biased opinion piece, which she did and I cannot fault her for that seeing how she has friends being affected by this, you are going to be attacked online. It shouldn't be like that, and I wish we could change that. But to be surprised when you are attacked? I find that odd. I know that if I write some blogpost about how I want more equality in games, but I find the ideas and opinions of Sarkeesian to be extremist, bad and I don't want her to dictate what game devs can and can't do, then I would most likely get attacked. I can be as measured, cool and diplomatic as humanly possible, but someone will attack me. And I am just a nobody, if I was a somewhat prominent writer? Multiply it tenfold.

Again, I hate that it happened and it really shouldn't, but it's odd to me that she didn't anticipate it.

Wut? An opinion piece is inherently biased, hence the word "opinion" in the name. Those kind of pieces are never going to be held to the same kind of ethical standards as a piece of hard-hitting investigative journalism. It seems to me that the people crying about ethics in games journalism have a totally warped view on how real journalism actually works.

And if you did write a blogpost saying that Anita was an extremist and that she was telling developers what to do, then yes, you would probably have some blowback as neither of those two statements are true. The things Anita is saying in her videos are pretty much gender studies 101 shit, hardly what I would call "extreme". She also isn't pointing a gun to developers' heads saying, "DON'T CREATE FEMALE CHARACTERS THAT I DON'T LIKE!" She is simply making critiques, a perfectly normal thing to do.

#2 Edited by Nexas (626 posts) -

@sinisterraven said:

@cabbagesensei said:

We are in a disagreement then. I believe the only way to curve the bias is to actively and consciously seek to unbalance it.

And I believe that an eye for the eye makes the world blind. You can't fight racism with racism. The only way to end racism and sexism is to stop referring to it. People seem far too passionate about holding on to their racial culture that they forget culture is just an idea that can very simply exist without being identified by the color of your skin. If you keep quotas and hate crime laws and forced diversity and all that nonsense you are merely saying that race matters. You are saying that people are defined intrinsically by the way they look. I would much rather disregard race entirely. Yes, there may be subconcious racism but if we find ways to reduce its manipulative powers on the front end rather than just trying to fix the consequences it will always exist till the end of time

How is ignoring race and sex supposed to fix the institutionalized racism and sexism that currently exist? In an ideal world race and sex would not matter, but we live in the real world where they do exist, and pretty much exclusively for the benefit of white males. Trying to promote only color-blind society when we are clearly not does nothing but preserve the racist institutions already in place.

#3 Posted by Nexas (626 posts) -

@cabbagesensei said:

@fiercedeity said:
@counterclockwork87 said:

@cabbagesensei said:

One of my fears is if Giant Bomb decides to publicly talk about the applicants' demographics, and it's revealed that little to no minorities or women applied, some people will say "See! We were right." They will casually ignore that the tone and atmosphere created by some (vocal) people in this community might keep minorities and women from applying in the first place.

I'm a minortiy, 100 percent hispanic first generation American (just to give an example my father was born in the Dominican Republic). I applied to work at Giant Bomb as a producer and I must say I was incredibly qualified as I've worked in television as a producer on things WAY bigger than Giant Bomb for a few years now. While Drew and Vinny were going to E3 I was producing content at the GRAMMYs (not diminishing their work of course!). Only reason I applied to GB is because I love the guys there even though it may be a "step down" from big time television. All that said, and despite my really good resume/reel I knew I had no shot...I KNEW someone from the inner circle of game journos would get the job. Why did I apply then? Because for a second I thought Jeff really wanted FRESH BLOOD, I really thought he meant it. Kind of like when they make a new Superman movie and they ask people what do they want an established star or a fresh face...lots of times people ask for a fresh face which is why Brandon Routh and Henry Cavill got those roles. Sometimes you just want someone new and I thought maybe that's what Giant Bomb was looking for. I have no ill will towards the new hires, I actually quite like Dan Ryckert...but I still find Giant Bomb comes off badly making this hire out to be more than it was every going to be. They should've just hired Dan and Jason and never made their hiring practices public on the forums....I doubt this would be happening if they just did this like when they hired Patrick (even though he got his fair share of hate, it wasn't for this reason).

If you came across as being this condescending in your resume, I can see why they wouldn't have considered you. Or, they could have simply considered you overqualified.

Condescending? How could you even make a claim about a resume you never saw? Overqualified? I thought people were arguing that they wanted applicants with lots of experience. Which is it?

I make the claim based on what he wrote in his own damn post. Seriously, read it. If "I must say I was incredibly qualified as I've worked in television as a producer on things WAY bigger than Giant Bomb" doesn't come off as condescending, even if it wasn't intentional, I really don't know what to say. Fuck, look at

"Only reason I applied to GB is because I love the guys there even though it may be a "step down" from big time television."

That makes it sound like he was trying to do an act of fucking charity.

It's not that hard to understand what he was saying duder. He's saying he was willing to take a job that pays less for the opportunity to work along side people he respects and admires. That is hardly condescending.

#4 Edited by Nexas (626 posts) -
#5 Posted by Nexas (626 posts) -

No, because it doesn't fix the main problem with the ending: it was really dumb. The Reapers' motives were dumb. The star child was dumb. The choices were dumb. The revelations in Leviathan were equally dumb. Giving an origin to Reapers and their motivations was a terrible idea in the first place. The thing that made the Reapers so intimidating was that they were completely incomprehensible to use mere mortals. Giving them a motivation that is completely understandable, but also completely paradoxal diminishes them as a threat.

#6 Posted by Nexas (626 posts) -

It got really weird when I fought him in Chie's story. The things he was saying to Chie was pretty the exact same thing that Adachi said near the end of the game.

#7 Edited by Nexas (626 posts) -

Hey guys. Hey guys.

Totally not a creepy raper guy
#9 Posted by Nexas (626 posts) -

Miranda was horrible character anyways. Tali on the hand, you should feel bad Patrick. Her and Garrus are the only two that always have Shepard's back, and I can't even imagine a version of Mass Effect without them.

#10 Posted by Nexas (626 posts) -

It was fun, but the new weight mechanic makes playing a non-soldier unbearable in the demo. Why couldn't they give us the option to switch out weapons?