SpaceInsomniac's forum posts

#1 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

@extomar said:

Keep on fighting THE MAN for the men where they have to protect their tempests in teapots from...something? You seem to think these people can make Rockstar bow to pressure which seems laughable but whatever. I see GTA 5 videos all over Twitch and YouTube with people having fun playing GTA Online which allows open character creation.

And really that is the thing everyone should take away. So what if someone is unhappy with what someone said? If one is happy then it is okay to continue on to be happy.

I don't think that at all, but the actions of game journalists still go against "the argument" that they defend themselves with, and I'm happy to point out that sort of hypocrisy when I see it.

@rockdalf said:

in a multiplayer game, it's quite obvious that people usually prefer to embody someone of their own ethnicity or gender.

I can only speak for myself, but in any game featuring a character creator, it has literally been years since I created someone of my own ethnicity and gender.

Online
#2 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -
@extomar said:

Part of the issue in this particular case with Ubisoft is that they fumbled with the "corporate speak". If Ubisoft had just simply said "The team made a design choice" instead of "Its hard!" people would have been far less critical.

So gamers hate the marketing and corporate speak especially when they have a hunch it isn't true. And yeah it happen to touch one of those nerves that sets off the internet too.

That's exactly what the GTA V developers said, and it changed absolutely nothing. Rockstar was still "wrong" for not including a playable female character in their campaign.

@spaceinsomniac said:

@defaultprophet said:
@oldirtybearon said:

Agreed, most people aren't, but there are some who do want to ban games with "sexist content" (?). That's the issue I have. For these people in particular they hide behind "it's criticism!" like it's some bulwark of flame retardant +5. Their criticism is often masked cries for censorship because what they say isn't "well I don't like this for these reasons" it's "THIS STUFF IS PROBLEMATIC AND WHY WOULD ANYONE MAKE IT UNLESS THEY'RE A SEXIST." A reasonable adult finds something they don't like and says "well that's shitty" and moves about their day. They leave a comment on a message board or on twitter and they quickly move on to something else.

Please link me to some of these people that want to ban games. Please. Further link me to the definition of censorship that states critics voicing their displeasure is a form of it.

Ban games? No, but more than ever I'm now convinced this is often an issue of censorship, and people trying to impose their personal values on everyone else.

The argument: "No one is coming for your video games! This isn't at all about censorship, or controlling game developers, and no one is trying to bully or shame anyone into doing anything. This is just about variety and diversity, and it's just a simple request that game developers think more about these issues when they're making their games. That's all. This isn't a zero-sum game, and there's room enough for all types of games, and all types of characters. There's nothing wrong with male protagonists, and we're not suggesting anything of the sort."

I've heard this for a while.

Then new Assassin's Creed game was announced to feature a male protagonist and three male co-op characters, and the same voices who claimed the above turned around and scolded Ubisoft like they were a dog who just made a mess on their new living room rug. Actually, I think they would have been a lot more respectful to the dog.

And don't even get me started on the Far Cry 4 promo art reveal.

While I do support the argument above, I think that it's frequently not the truth for those who claim otherwise.

You're looking at AC from a super narrow perspective. The issue wasn't just that there wasn't a female co-op character. The issue was in the past Ubisoft has been good about including at least one in that scenario. They also compounded the issue by claiming it would take double the time to include one even with ex-Ubi employees saying that simply isn't the case and the majority of animation is shared between the male and female characters in AC. Given all of that, do you think the response was more reasonable or does it not matter?

That's a fair point, although this is the first AC game to feature co-op. Women were only playable in competitive multiplayer so far, with the exception of using one female protagonist for an entire game.

The response was reasonable when it specifically concerned what Ubisoft said rather than the lack of playable female characters in Unity, but the initial question was not reasonable. I fully agree that the Ubisoft's handling of the issue was very stupid, but I have to ask why was it an issue in the first place? If the argument is "nothing is wrong with male protagonists, we're not telling developers what to do, there's room enough for all types of games" why even call Ubisoft out on the issue to begin with?

"Why France? Why male characters? Why the focus on co-op?" all seem like fair questions concerning the new Assassin's Creed game, and would give a good sense of the direction that Ubisoft decided to go with in the game.

"Why not Israel? Why no playable women? Why not change the combat to feature a Batman / Sleeping Dogs style of counters and combos?" are not questions so much as requests. And "why no playable women?" isn't a request that should be made of any specific game when the argument is "nothing is wrong with male protagonists, we're not telling developers what to do, there's room enough for all types of games."

Also, while a lot of the rage toward Ubisoft was focused on that PR rep's stupid comment, it was very often used as a springboard to specifically complain about the lack of female character options in the new Assassin's Creed. This coming from the same journalists who fall back on "the argument" whenever anyone calls them on their aggression.

And like I said earlier, the same thing happened with Rockstar and GTA V without any ridiculous foot-in-mouth "women are hard to make" statements.

Online
#3 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

@defaultprophet said:
@oldirtybearon said:

Agreed, most people aren't, but there are some who do want to ban games with "sexist content" (?). That's the issue I have. For these people in particular they hide behind "it's criticism!" like it's some bulwark of flame retardant +5. Their criticism is often masked cries for censorship because what they say isn't "well I don't like this for these reasons" it's "THIS STUFF IS PROBLEMATIC AND WHY WOULD ANYONE MAKE IT UNLESS THEY'RE A SEXIST." A reasonable adult finds something they don't like and says "well that's shitty" and moves about their day. They leave a comment on a message board or on twitter and they quickly move on to something else.

Please link me to some of these people that want to ban games. Please. Further link me to the definition of censorship that states critics voicing their displeasure is a form of it.

Ban games? No, but more than ever I'm now convinced this is often an issue of censorship, and people trying to impose their personal values on everyone else.

The argument: "No one is coming for your video games! This isn't at all about censorship, or controlling game developers, and no one is trying to bully or shame anyone into doing anything. This is just about variety and diversity, and it's just a simple request that game developers think more about these issues when they're making their games. That's all. This isn't a zero-sum game, and there's room enough for all types of games, and all types of characters. There's nothing wrong with male protagonists, and we're not suggesting anything of the sort."

I've heard this for a while.

Then the new Assassin's Creed game was announced to feature a male protagonist and three male co-op characters, and the same voices who claimed the above turned around and scolded Ubisoft like they were a dog who just made a mess on their new living room rug. Actually, I think they would have been a lot more respectful to the dog.

And don't even get me started on the Far Cry 4 promo art reveal.

While I do support the argument above, I think that it's frequently not the truth for those who claim otherwise.

Online
#4 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

@conmulligan said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

So out of all the ridiculous intentionally controversial things that Rockstar lets you do in GTA, and all the killing sprees, and cop killing, and drug use, and torture that you can engage in, you specifically think that the one thing that has to go is being able to kill hookers and get your money back from them. That's the thing that is over the line?

With the possible exception of the torture sequence, the way those other scenarios play out in the GTA games is so absurd and over-the-top that it's hard to take them seriously because they have no connection with reality. The violence against prostitutes is completely plausible, however. That's the distinction. The violence against cops also doesn't play into a larger societal issue like the objectification of women does.

I do sort of agree with the thought that the violence against cops is over-the-top, but does that mean that if killing hookers was presented as equally over the top, it would be more acceptable? There's a strange thought.

Also, violence against cops isn't a societal issue? It seems like you're suggesting that if a man kills a hooker, it's because a certain element of society has convinced him that her life is without value. Does that mean if a man kills a police officer, that has nothing to do with a certain element of society convincing him that officer's life is without value? Are you saying certain elements of society do not have issues concerning trust, fear, and hatred when it comes to how they view the police? If so, wouldn't that make it a societal issue?

@conmulligan said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

But we're getting off topic, because we were talking about hitman. Hitman specifically discourages you from killing any civilian. If you don't feel that the game does enough to discourage civilian attacks, what do you think should have been done differently?

I think not having almost every woman be an ineffectual sex object would be a start. Giving them some amount of agency would go a long way to making that stuff more palatable. With that said, I do think the Hitman example was a bit of a reach on Anita's part. It's frustrating to see everyone cherry pick that example, though, when the whole point of the Tropes vs. Women series is to point out and foster discussion on broader trends, not specific titles. When we single out one title to argue about we're missing the forrest for the trees.

Are you suggesting that the women in that Hitmen scene are ineffectual sex objects? They have no more or less agency when it comes to player interaction than any other civilian in the game, male or female. And their dialogue concerns one of the men working at the club being a jerk, to which the other replies that it's the price you pay to work in their industry, and that any strip club like that is bound to have some jerk working there. So not only do they have agency on display by showing that they choose to work there, but they're given dialog that humanizes them beyond their polygonal form, which allows the player to better sympathize with them, and helps show that they ARE people rather than just sexy dancers.

Absolutely none of that dialog is heard in Sarkeesian's video, because it completely goes against the story that she's trying to create.

As for cherry picking, it's one argument that Anita chose herself, and worded herself in a way that completely misrepresents the game that is being talked about. It's also an incredibly brief part of the game, and one of three ways you can accomplish that mission, all of which specifically discourage you from attacking the dancers or any other random citizen. It's ironic that the people criticizing Anita for the way she talked about hitman are being accused of cherry picking her argument. You don't cherry pick specific examples provided by an individual, you cherry pick from thousands of sources. If I find the most man-hating feminist video I can come up with and say "see, this is what feminists are really like!" that is cherry picking, and it's dishonest.

Online
#5 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

So listen, if I were doing a video series about cop killing in video games and I pulled out GTA5 and said "This mission has you killing cops and you can kill cops whenever" would you then turn around on me and say "Well you can also kill gangsters and soccer moms so whatever why are you bringing that up?"

Of course not.

I wasn't talking about Sarkeesian's video with that question. I was asking conmuligan's opinion based on the GTA example that he brought up.

@conmulligan said:

@spaceinsomniac said:

So are you arguing that the ability to attack female civilians in an action-oriented video game is inherently worse than being able to attack male civilians?

Most of the time, no. I don't think there's a distinction between running down a man or a woman with a car in GTA, for instance. On the other hand, picking up a prostitute and then beating her to death to get your money back plays into a very real danger that sex workers face, and I think it would be to Rockstar's credit to at least discourage players from doing this.

Are you suggesting that developers should put women in the same group with children and either not include them actions games, or make them completely invincible?

Nope! I was just making the point that game developers already place limits on what kinds of people the player can do bad shit to.

So out of all the ridiculous intentionally controversial things that Rockstar lets you do in GTA, and all the killing sprees, and cop killing, and drug use, and torture that you can engage in, you specifically think that the one thing that has to go is being able to kill hookers and get your money back from them. That's the thing that is over the line?

Not that I desperately want to preserve the ability to kill hookers in GTA or anything--and I haven't done so or cared about it since GTA III--but I do think it's an odd concern given everything else you can do in GTA.

picking up a prostitute and then beating her to death to get your money back plays into a very real danger that sex workers face

And shooting cops in the face doesn't play into a very real danger that police officers face? A danger and concern that male and female officers alike face, along with their wives, husbands, and children? Why should Rockstar express concern and empathy for one and not the other?

But we're getting off topic, because we were talking about hitman. Hitman specifically discourages you from killing any civilian. If you don't feel that the game does enough to discourage civilian attacks, what do you think should have been done differently?

Online
#6 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

@spaceinsomniac said:

So are you arguing that the ability to attack female civilians in an action-oriented video game is inherently worse than being able to attack male civilians?

Most of the time, no. I don't think there's a distinction between running down a man or a woman with a car in GTA, for instance. On the other hand, picking up a prostitute and then beating her to death to get your money back plays into a very real danger that sex workers face, and I think it would be to Rockstar's credit to at least discourage players from doing this.

Are you suggesting that developers should put women in the same group with children and either not include them actions games, or make them completely invincible?

Nope! I was just making the point that game developers already place limits on what kinds of people the player can do bad shit to.

So out of all the ridiculous intentionally controversial things that Rockstar lets you do in GTA, and all the killing sprees, and cop killing, and drug use, and torture that you can engage in, you specifically think that the one thing that has to go is being able to kill hookers and get your money back from them. That's the thing that is over the line?

Not that I desperately want to preserve the ability to kill hookers in GTA or anything--and I haven't done so or cared about it since GTA III--but I do think it's an odd concern given everything else you can do in GTA.

picking up a prostitute and then beating her to death to get your money back plays into a very real danger that sex workers face

And shooting cops in the face doesn't play into a very real danger that police officers face? A danger and concern that male and female officers alike face, along with their wives, husbands, and children? Why should Rockstar express concern and empathy for one and not the other?

But we're getting off topic, because we were talking about hitman. Hitman specifically discourages you from killing any civilian. If you don't feel that the game does enough to discourage civilian attacks, what do you think should have been done differently?

Online
#7 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

@conmulligan said:

@heyguys said:

@conmulligan: Are you going to tell me that designers need to restrict players from excercing in game freedom to do bad things? Because that is a doozy of an argument, is Sleeping Dogs immoral from allowing Vinny to engage in violence against women? should games always restrict you, even if they actively discourage you from doing morally wrong things, to doing good?

Nobody is saying designers are obligated to restrict players from engaging in problematic behaviour, just that they should be conscious of what they are allowing the player to do. I also don't think it's a bad idea for open-world games to find ways to omit or discourage the worst behaviour — plenty already do by not including children, for example.

So are you arguing that the ability to attack female civilians in an action-oriented video game is inherently worse than being able to attack male civilians? Are you suggesting that developers should put women in the same group with children and either not include them actions games, or make them completely invincible?

And the game in question--Hitman--already does discourage the worst behavior that you're talking about. It discourages you from attacking any random civilian. That's the whole point.

Online
#8 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

If you're going to "spoof" that scene, you should be changing the dialog anyway, or something about the context or characters. How about trying to come up with a similar analogy that would apply to Disney characters, or something. Don't make it about race, make it about the genetic makeup of some unrelated character changing due to another type of character taking over their land and breeding with their population. I can't put my finger on something that would work, but if you can find it, that would be a parody.

This is a good example of a properly done parody:

Online
#9 Posted by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -

@muzhik said:

@stick100: Considering the main political opinion of those involved with gamergate is that misogyny is good and women shouldn't have a space in video games or games journalism I'm glad they don't have their opinions reflected widely in games journalism.

Pretty narrow minded to actually believe GG supports misogyny when a lot of people that support it are women and minorities. But the other side has explicitly said that white men are scum of the Earth that needs to die (sounds like death threats with social justice logic), and gamers are disgusting and vile people. It's blatant hypocrisy.

I find myself arguing a LOT against the tone of the social justice movement coming from game journalists and feminists these days, and I have to say I feel the exact same way watching this video. And I feel that way about Anita Sarkeesian's videos. And I feel that way about thunderfoot's videos. And I feel that way about most of the many articles on the topic that Patrick chooses to link to and promote.

Can't anyone talk about these subjects without the insulting, generalizing, misrepresenting, condescending, "I'm right and you're wrong" bullshit? All anyone ever seems to want to do is preach to the choir, and I'm getting sick of it.

Online
#10 Edited by SpaceInsomniac (3755 posts) -
@LunarJetman said:

Samantha Allen even wrote a blog on it. From what I heard she removed it by now though. Here's an excerpt:

"i’m a misandrist. that means i hate men. i’m not a cute misandrist. i don’t have a fridge magnet that says, “boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.” my loathing cannot be contained by a fridge magnet."

Interestingly this actually goes against things that Leigh Alexander said. You'd think that these two would be on the same wave length in every regard. Here's Leigh's statement:

"there is no such thing as misandry just like there is no such thing as racism against white people"

Who to believe?!

@teaoverlord said:

@LunarJetman: They're two different people. Why would you expect them to have the exact same opinion on everything?

I don't think the point is "why don't they have the same opinion?" I think the point is that Leigh Alexander is wrong.

Online