They weren't even "Booth Babes"... They were just there to show some Costumes your PC could wear to hide among Crowds and such. The Males were to how NPC Costumes.
|
Most of the AAA Companies in Gaming are more interested in making profits. That means marketing with what has proven successful. Those that actually push the envelope don't sell mainly because they can't afford to market.Tomb Raider didn't sell?
Well, despite outselling many games led by a male protagonist, it's apparently still considered a disappointment by Square Enix.
It also adds to the fact that she got the Game Boycotted by A LOT of gamers. The Company went under and got bought out. & the game was excellent. It literally had a story that rivals most others. It literally has 40+ Hours of content. It is open sandbox & Stealth focused. Literally think Infamous but everything is open to you.
I think you might have literally used the word literally too many times. Literally.
I was making a Covert mocking of another game... One of the MOST annoying Female Protagonists of all time.
I was making a Covert mocking of another game... One of the MOST annoying Female Protagonists of all time.
And she would be?
I can't remember ho to spell her last name but it is something along the lines of Yoshiko Tonika or something. Thankfully she was only the PoV Protagonist, think Vaan from FFXII, in a story she mostly watched.
It was a Cult Classic Game that was set in a Fantasy World inspired by the Warring States Era. The sad part was she had long lines when they did come up and you couldn't skip them...
She openly admitted to not listening fully to their conversation. It was proven that it was the phrases taken out of Context and that she is apparently going to be required to issue an apology. She has already been banned from something this Fall do to it. Ironically, she is banned do to actions of a organization helping woman in the tech industry.
She openly admitted to not listening fully to their conversation. It was proven that it was the phrases taken out of Context and that she is apparently going to be required to issue an apology. She has already been banned from something this Fall do to it. Ironically, she is banned do to actions of a organization helping woman in the tech industry.
Who is going to require her to issue an apology, her boss? LOL
The U.S. Laws that prevent Slander of an individual's name via False information. Alongside the Laws protecting a part of the First Amendment.
Nope she was told issue a Recant/Apology or face charges. There was a major story on it here recently.
I could be mistaken but it seems in most those games (If not all) the default is assumed to be the male version.
Having played through both Fallout 3 (and New Vegas) and Skyrim as bioth male and female characters there was nothing that stood out to me that gave me an impression that it was assumed you were male, so I wouldn't be so sure...
For some reason this got me thinking about this Persian girl I knew from Turkey when I was in college. She had the most beautiful caramel colored skin.2nd EDIT: Armenian chicks are hawt!!
[Drools]
Yes, Iranian women are also wicked hawt.
Come to think of it, Iranian men that I've known, when they're not wearing Khomeini-style beards, are also quite fetching.
So, I'm 2/3rds of the way through Catching Fire and I've decided that Ms. Sarkeesian has all the critical acumen of a wet sponge.
I can't remember ho to spell her last name but it is something along the lines of Yoshiko Tonika or something. Thankfully she was only the PoV Protagonist, think Vaan from FFXII, in a story she mostly watched.
It was a Cult Classic Game that was set in a Fantasy World inspired by the Warring States Era. The sad part was she had long lines when they did come up and you couldn't skip them...
Which game(s)/company are we talking about here?
Some little Company called Kuromori Games... I think...
Oh yeah, I forgot:
I read an intro to critical analysis for teenagers called How to Analyze the Works of Suzanne Collins that had a better gender analysis of the Hunger Games than Anita "I hate love triangles--Little Women sucks!!" Sarkeesian.
Oh yeah, I forgot:
I read an intro to critical analysis for teenagers called How to Analyze the Works of Suzanne Collins that had a better gender analysis of the Hunger Games than Anita "I hate love triangles--Little Women sucks!!" Sarkeesian.
But she's more fun to look at for 25 minutes. And interesting even when I disagree with her.
Damsel in Distress: Part 2
I love that Sarkeesian avoids the actual issues (dull-as-shit-stories, only-combat narratives & solutions, lack of protagonist variety, etc.) so that she can focus on the symptoms of the issues. I also love that she only mentions developers, as if publishers, religion, culture, and market trends have absolutely nothing to do with a title's creative direction... Really, the video has the same problems as her first installment:
- boring & obnoxious speech patterns (it really sounds like she's reading everything from cards)
- twitchy head movement, no gestures or other dynamic activity, unnecessary massive piercings-that-will-one-day-catch-on-a-bookshelf-and-cost-her-an-ear-or-two
- focusing on the wrong issues and then beating the equine corpse into pieces
- repetitive structure (hot-button scene depicting violence against women x 20, "This is bad and you should feel bad" talking head, hot-button scene depicting violence against women x 20, "This is even worse, subscribe to my channel!!!", etc.)
On the bright side, the next video promises some actual variety. It probably won't happen, but sometimes I like to shove optimism into the strangest places.
Gee, what a shock. In video about violence against women in video games, she focuses on violence against women in video games.
Is it violence against women video or tropes vs. women?
Not going to comment on most of your post, Necromancer, but it's not cool to judge someone's choice of attire as part of a critique of their arguments. Avoid the ad hominem attacks, hey?
I take it that the "Mind Blank" failed. ;P
|
But she's more fun to look at for 25 minutes. And interesting even when I disagree with her.Oh yeah, I forgot:
I read an intro to critical analysis for teenagers called How to Analyze the Works of Suzanne Collins that had a better gender analysis of the Hunger Games than Anita "I hate love triangles--Little Women sucks!!" Sarkeesian.
Umm, she's not fun to look at at all...
Gee, what a shock. In video about violence against women in video games, she focuses on violence against women in video games.
Nor has she changed her fashion style to suit you.
Nor become a polished actress and producer.
Look, I'm just pointing out that I've not seen any improvement from her previous video. If I was attempting to draw attention to an issue and planned to execute it in video form, I'd try and iron out any imperfections before publishing the video. Sarkeesian has been uploading videos for some time and I expected higher quality on something that she feels strongly about.
Not going to comment on most of your post, Necromancer, but it's not cool to judge someone's choice of attire as part of a critique of their arguments. Avoid the ad hominem attacks, hey?
Maybe I should've elaborated a bit more, but I mentioned the piercings (a distraction) as part of a larger problem. The combination of spinning metallic objects, in-your-face talking head approach to narration, and amateur voice-work prevents me from watching the video properly. Seriously, I end up just scrolling down from time to time to avoid closing the tab. I do this for ads; I shouldn't be doing this for the content I came to watch.
General disclaimer - I'm not against Sarkeesian's stance on this...not at the end of the day, anyways. What I dislike is the tone she's taken, the series' overly narrow focus, and some of the examples chosen.
|
Not going to comment on most of your post, Necromancer, but it's not cool to judge someone's choice of attire as part of a critique of their arguments. Avoid the ad hominem attacks, hey?I take it that the "Mind Blank" failed. ;P
I shouldn't have taken the Duty Calls flaw. You'd think that the Will save penalty would never come up, but it always does!
Umm, she's not fun to look at at all...But she's more fun to look at for 25 minutes. And interesting even when I disagree with her.Oh yeah, I forgot:
I read an intro to critical analysis for teenagers called How to Analyze the Works of Suzanne Collins that had a better gender analysis of the Hunger Games than Anita "I hate love triangles--Little Women sucks!!" Sarkeesian.
I think she is quite fun to look at...when she's not talking smack about the Glorious People's Revolution in Panem!
Down with Anita!
Vive le Katniss!
She should use that extra cash to make a video apologizing to Suzanne Collins...
|
Her appearance is irrelevant.
Her points are valid.
Violence against women is a grim reality, and far too easily used to further the plot of a male protagonist.
Video games too often default to the one verb "kill", and it's tragic that developers and publishers don't do enough to push these boundaries.
Sarkeesian makes a lot of valid points. How she raised funds to make her educational videos. How she looks, dresses or speaks are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to go right out there and say this. I am a Humanist. I believe in treating all human beings equally. That means that I am an anti-feminist. Because feminism is by its very definition, divisive.
Feminism was a good idea once, and I grew up a feminist (though I am male) because I was raised primarily by a mother and aunts (my father was out of the picture). It arose for good reasons... it was the work of women who actually had cause to protest and to demand equal rights.
But over time, I have come to understand that modern, post-feminism is not our grandmothers' feminism. It is a divisive, anger-driven movement designed to further a notion of female exceptionalism and superiority under the GUISE of equality. Women do not want to be treated as equals. If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men, and women would have to face the same poor, bullying - and innuendo and vulgarity-laced - treatment that men inflict upon one-another every single day. Instead, they want to be treated special AND get the perks, and they cry foul when they are treated equally. Anything less than sainthood results in cries of discrimination and harassment, quickly followed up with a brainless meme on Facebook and an article on Jezebel encouraging the castration of all male babies at birth. My own post-modern feminist friends are so concerned with women's-rights ONLY and with the catchphrase of the week ("Rape Culture" comes to mind; a phrase wholly analogous to "Abortion Industry" in its ability to strip real human victims and real human beings in bad situations of all of their individuality and humanity), that they themselves seem to care very little about individual women who have actually suffered harm, and god forbid a child - especially a boy - be raped, because that child is not a woman, and so is of no concern. It's disgusting.
For this reason, I never take people like Anita seriously anymore. If I could, I would dismantle feminism tomorrow with extreme prejudice, as I would any angry, divisive, one-sided movement, and I would fold any reasonable Feminist into Humanism where they belong. Everybody else would be left to fend off the very people they claim to be against, with whom they share all the same awful traits, whether they know it or not.
Better that ALL people get fair and decent treatment. Better we stop talking about how people are hurt because they are male or female, or black or white, or a child, or an elderly person, and start worrying about how to make sure we teach our HUMAN children how to treat OTHER HUMANS HUMANELY.
I'm just going to go right out there and say this. I am a Humanist. I believe in treating all human beings equally. That means that I am an anti-feminist. Because feminism is by its very definition, divisive.
Feminism was a good idea once, and I grew up a feminist (though I am male) because I was raised primarily by a mother and aunts (my father was out of the picture). It arose for good reasons... it was the work of women who actually had cause to protest and to demand equal rights.
But over time, I have come to understand that modern, post-feminism is not our grandmothers' feminism. It is a divisive, anger-driven movement designed to further a notion of female exceptionalism and superiority under the GUISE of equality. Women do not want to be treated as equals. If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men, and women would have to face the same poor, bullying - and innuendo and vulgarity-laced - treatment that men inflict upon one-another every single day. Instead, they want to be treated special AND get the perks, and they cry foul when they are treated equally. Anything less than sainthood results in cries of discrimination and harassment, quickly followed up with a brainless meme on Facebook and an article on Jezebel encouraging the castration of all male babies at birth. My own post-modern feminist friends are so concerned with women's-rights ONLY and with the catchphrase of the week ("Rape Culture" comes to mind; a phrase wholly analogous to "Abortion Industry" in its ability to strip real human victims and real human beings in bad situations of all of their individuality and humanity), that they themselves seem to care very little about individual women who have actually suffered harm, and god forbid a child - especially a boy - be raped, because that child is not a woman, and so is of no concern. It's disgusting.
For this reason, I never take people like Anita seriously anymore. If I could, I would dismantle feminism tomorrow with extreme prejudice, as I would any...
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aaaaand Bruunwald's post signals my time to nope my way out of this thread, hope the video gets seen by some of the people who appreciated part 1.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men ...I think we have a long way to go before women of this world achieve equality.
Bruunwald's point is that would be equality, thus we have a "long way to go before people of this world reach an egalitarian society".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well it's nice to know that 100 year old struggle for equality has finally hit the tipping point. Woman of the world can now not only vote but now actually represent half of all elected officials, always make as much as a man doing the same job, and always have control over their bodies. I'm so glad that things are finally equal now and we can put all that ugly unfairness in the past just like we did racism after the 2008 election.
/sarcasm
I think you've somehow managed to completely and utterly miss the point of his post somehow.
His point was that instead of focusing on "female equality" or "black equality" or "gay equality" or "Purple people eater equality", we should just focus on human equality. That it, it encompasses all of them without pretending they're separate issues, and with the added, wonderful side effect of hopefully utterly annihilating the RadFem movement until there's nothing but dust and crocodile tears where it used to stand.
What he's saying is that Feminism has shifted from "Let's fight for female equality!" to "Let's fight for female supremacy!, which is wholly counter-productive, as that would be trading one inequality for another. Whether he's correct or not I cannot say, but I do know that I have never met a "Feminist" who did not share that attitude in one way or another, whether it be the "I want Castration Day to be an international holiday!" level of crazy, or the milder but still stupid "I want to be treated equally, but I also want to be doted on by the man in my life because I'm special!".
Bruunwald's point is that would be equality, thus we have a "long way to go before people of this world reach an egalitarian society".If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men ...I think we have a long way to go before women of this world achieve equality.
I've never heard bullying described as equality before.
I've never heard bullying described as equality before.Bruunwald's point is that would be equality, thus we have a "long way to go before people of this world reach an egalitarian society".If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men ...I think we have a long way to go before women of this world achieve equality.
Exactly we shouldn't be striving for equality, instead we should be striving to better mankind's relationship with each other and the environment that surrounds.
Anyway this is getting slightly off-topic:
Sarkeesian makes a lot of valid points. How she raised funds to make her educational videos. How she looks, dresses or speaks are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Unfortunately, an educator has to be able to capture the imagination of those they are teaching, usually the best way to do this is with good oration. (Certainly, the clothing/style of the speaker is at least tangentionally relevant - although shouldn't be a focus)
I don't know how anyone can "nope" humanism. Equal treatment for all people? Bullocks!
Good summary of why I don't like her here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI
Also shes just missed her major submission dates (And Im not sure where those extra 140,000 went.).
Shes a feminist that doesn't think things through, and just likes to rage at a general....target....thing, and demand censorship.
In other words, or