RagingDaemon

@Qlanth: Your logic doesn't follow at all. Men chafe at feminism because it very much fights for special treatment for women, and has flexed its power to litigate it. Simply look at the legal system, from VAWA (RIP) to the family courts, the educational system, and the healthcare system.

That's before we even start discussing homelessness, crime, death, the worst and most dangerous jobs, etc.

The age old feminist talking points have been soundly refuted, from the bogus wage gap to the disingenuous rape statistics, to the domestic violence fear mongering.

I doubt you or your ilk have ever critically examined the things you're parroting as self evident truths. But it sure does feel good to shit on people from your lofty and dogmatic perch, doesn't it?

@BallsDeep: You got it. I'm kinda surprised my comment hit home with more than 0 people :-p I think it's up to 3 or 4 now!

@dr_mantas said:

@TheEvilCory said:

@dr_mantas: Yeah, what do all of those "academics of choice" sociologists know? They've just got PHD's and shit. You're a dude on the internet! Armed with limited knowledge and what passes for common sense these days!

Thanks, friend! Now I see the error of my ways! I'm just not using logical fallacies like I obviously should - arguments from authority, insulting the person I'm talking to, all that great stuff!

Thanks, you really showed me the way. You must be a dude NOT on the internet.

But in HYPERSPACE!

This was pretty much absolute gold.

@randomfella21: Thanks brotato chip. Most people don't really think about the implications of what they've been taught, or read. They take a Womens' Studies 101 class, or read Schroedinger's Rapist and never go beyond the conclusion of the person telling them their viewpoint. According to the latest posters here, the only valid definitions of misandry, racism, et al are the ones approved by the Gender Studies higher ups.

With the exception of like 5 posters, it's mostly people screaming unexamined doctrines at one another while trying to sound super smart.

If you're railing against women being legitimately discriminated against via hiring practices, pay discrepancies, promotion denials, etc, you have a legitimate issue.

If you're fighting for women to feel perfectly comfortable at all times, you don't have a legitimate issue. Real life is rough and messy. Conflicts happen. Social faux pas' are made. Feelings are hurt. Misunderstandings happen. Sexual Harassment laws exist if it goes beyond that. Being mistaken for a secretary, being hit on, being told you don't look like you're a programmer or whatever, are bullshit victim hysterical complaints. The world is not obligated to be sensitive and perfectly attuned to your personal set of hangups, no matter who you are. You are only deserving of human rights and a fair shake under the law.

Are you going to advocate for litigating "niceness"? Will you be happy once all language is fully neutral, the only allowed words denoting negative things are strictly regulated, and offenders fined and punished? How would you regulate interactions to prevent anyone from being offended ever? How far would you take it, if you were fully in charge?

Next, as has already been stated many times, the 47% figure is clearly BS.

The publishers would have gone out of business if the cash cow AAA titles (not Angry Birds and Farmville) were bought by 50% women.

There is nothing wrong with selling to your audience.

Please start arguing that heterosexual Romance novels have unrealistic depictions of men. Please rally hard for that to be fixed.

Also, while you're fighting the good fight for women to get into STEM fields by any and all means necessary... Know some other fields women are underrepresented in? Garbage collectors, loggers, truck drivers, construction workers. You know, the most dangerous, destructive, and shit paying jobs. There is absolutely no parity there. But something tells me you aren't going to give a shit.

It's almost like you're not really interested in true egalitarianism.

@Brodehouse: You're not going to get through to that user. He/She is spouting radfem talking points. The entire rhetoric is devised in such a way as to make anything but perfect agreement impossible on any number of made-up reasons that paint the would-be dissenter as villain and them as victim.

@Salarn said:

@RagingDaemon said:

@Salarn: For the purposes of the industry and the discussion, "hardcore" probably means those who drive sales. You think Call of Duty and Madden would sell the way they do if half the sales went to female consumers? You think the sparkly, shiny, Zynga Facebook games would be marketed and designed the way they were if the audience was largely male?

If the majority audience of a medium is being insulted and not served, the medium will adapt to fill the niche. Or fail.

If there's no market ($$$) pressure for developers to change, it becomes a vocal minority demanding change because uh, it's "fair".

If the argument is "hard core" drives sales, it falls flat when you look at achievement trending of people who play madden and call of duty. They are typically people who only purchase their one or two games a year.

Trying to define 'hard core' vs 'casual' is not valuable, it doesn't detract from the point at hand that game industry can be much better in the way it treats female employees.

------------------- Other ways to define hard core -------------------

If 'hard core' is $$$ spent then based on the numbers, facebook games are just as hard core as any other type of game. Angry birds is the most profitable game ever made in return on investment. So by a monetary definition it's the most 'hard core' game ever.

If 'hard core' is based on time played then if you're not a Facebook/MMO player you're a dirty casual.

If 'hard core' is based on game complexity, then as previously mentioned, CoD & Madden are baby games compared to Dwarf Fortress.

If 'hard core' is based on popularity, then League of Legends has over 9 million minutes a month viewed on twitch.tv alone making other games weep.

The point that the original dude tried to make to you was that the 47% figure was worthless because it didn't explain sales/the community sufficiently. Hardcore is really just a place holder. That's why I presented the two dichotomous game categories and why they are designed and marketed so disparately.

Just saying 47% of gamers/game buyers/whatever is very misleading. Because that's at best, an aggregate number, at worst we're including people who at some point in their life played a game, no longer do, but still fondly think of the hobby.

Because the 47% argument is being used for "OMG Gears/GTA/CoD/etc" are "insert female centric complaint here". Yeah well, if all those franchises were really being bought by roughly half of women, their success and sales figures in their current state would make absolutely no sense.

@Salarn: For the purposes of the industry and the discussion, "hardcore" probably means those who drive sales. You think Call of Duty and Madden would sell the way they do if half the sales went to female consumers? You think the sparkly, shiny, Zynga Facebook games would be marketed and designed the way they were if the audience was largely male?

If the majority audience of a medium is being insulted and not served, the medium will adapt to fill the niche. Or fail.

If there's no market ($$$) pressure for developers to change, it becomes a vocal minority demanding change because uh, it's "fair".

So after Jeff left, his whole plan was to come right back to being under a corporate umbrella? This almost seems like being a victim of your own success. Doing weird shit out of a basement office to circling right back.

I'll keep coming to the site as this is the only place I've needed for gaming and gaming related content since its inception, but I remember when Kotaku was pretty cool, and then it became a victim of its own success too. Now it's full of shitty articles and an ass ugly format.

I guess we can only wait and see.

@SpikeSpiegel: I'm saying that the people who are saying language that they don't agree with should never be used and would try to exert influence to change the FGC from without are advocating censorship based on their own moral/ethical worldviews. In this case it's internet/media pressure.

I've said a few times before that the FGC would have to deal with consequences from sponsors or general viewership if they chose to dig in and their sponsors didn't like it. But that it should be their choice, and that of their market interaction. Not the media fueling internet cop activists.

What SRK did wasn't instigated by the FGC coming to terms with anything. It was initiated by the most part by people who don't play, don't watch, don't contribute, don't go to EVO or local tournaments, but are professional at being offended on the internet.

Who likes when right wingers try to control other people's lives based on their own beliefs? Same idea here, though on a smaller and less significant scale obviously.