Calax

That's why this game of readying a political message into every puddle of water is so asinine. Because if you play that game then... Anita is actually right. Everything about the movie is completely (stereotypically) masculine. The bada-- female character may have a vagina, but she is a "real man" through and through, it's not her femininity that's being worshiped. Now if the good guys could win through a rejection of "toxic masculinity" then we could talk. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I think the idea is that it's a femenist movie because of the fact that Furiosa is ostensibly the main character, and the entire end goal for the movie is to attain independence for the badguys... breeders(?)

I feel like Anita's the type of woman who's fighting for female rights in public, but has her boyfriend/husband/whoever totally dominate her in private.

The 1989 Punisher film, Fury Road and Starship Troopers with the GF. And Punisher War Zone by myself. Honestly I can see why War Zone doesn't work with the critics. I imagine that if it had been a higher valued production like Fury Road it would have been a much better received film by mainstream. Although that would have taken away the fun kitch value of the thing "Yummy yummy yummy in my tummy tummy tummy"

To be fair, Mad Max is incredibly colorful and mostly bright

Two things that I noticed after watching it last night. One is that it felt a tiny bit to long (although I saw it in 3d and 3d glasses plus perscription = not that great an experiance), the other is that it felt like there was an entire other story or two that we didn't see involving gas town and the bullet farm. Also I wish that they gave the characters more identifiers. Only three names were really known, but there were significantly more characters.

Other than the fact of this being common knowledge for a multitutde of years? Consider Jeff Gerstmann. Fired from his editorial position at Gamespot in late 2007 because he gave a low rating to Kane & Lynch: Dead Men while Eidos, publisher of said game, was heavily advertising said game on Gamespot. This was solely rumor for many years because Gerstmann was legally banned from speaking about it due to a non-disparagement agreement but that was nullified in 2012, when Gerstmann came out and confirmed that this was indeed the reason he was fired. There's many more examples, but that is the most egregious one I can think of right now. However, the fact that game review websites and even magazines when they were still relevant would give favorable scores to publishers paying for advertisement has been common knowledge for well over two decades and is the reason why games journalism was regarded as a joke since far before #GamerGate. You can even tell historically simply from looking at these threads, the most often used argument against #GamerGate so far has been "games journalism was always worthless, why do you care now?" I have never denied that there are a incidents of irregular conduct by some gaming websites or some isolated articles that subjectively attacked gamers ( like the Leigh Alexander article ) Most gaming websites stay open through marketing revenues that the publishers are responsible for. Considering the fact that gaming websites don't actually sell product this is perfectly normal and to be expected. Gaming websites also have costs that somehow have to be paid for. We cannot have an issue with the fact that there is relationship between gaming websites and publisher. I am very interested in how you expect, for example, a website like Gamasutra to pay for its costs without getting money through marketing budgets from various publishers? I have a major issue with the fact that somehow GG is going to change this business model or the suggestion that this now means that this relationship is corrupt or unethical. Yes there will be some examples of a publisher paying for a good score but I would need to see data that suggests this is wide spread. And yes I know you cannot produce this data so how can anyone make this statement if it is not fact ? So this is a subjective accusation Also the other reason that people like Nonek keep hammering home about is how gaming websites insult and demonize gamers. This hyperbole seems to be due to a few articles linked to Gamasutra and maybe RPS. But are we suggesting that daily there are articles that attack gamers? No of course there aren't. Have there been even 5 articles in the last year on gaming websites that have created the same reaction as the original Leigh Alexander article? That article and the industry wide reaction to this entire thing is why GG keeps going. The fact that the customers were demonized in linked articles showed that not only was there something going on behind the scenes to control the narrative, Most of the major news websites within the industry were involved in adjusting that narrative. And these aren't people who are just "reviewing" games anymore. The longer and more polarizing this is, the more that you end up examining a review and finding that the review is more about how the reviewer's social values were offended by the portrayal of women. And the sad part is, until gaming becomes TRUELY mainstream, with GTA being discussed on morning talk shows at the same level as Transformers or Avengers, and the reviews begin to move to a non-gaming centric platform, there won't be change because it's a self feeding system. The sad part of it is that Kotaku probably won't go under because it's parent company (Gawker media) owns several other sites. Those other sites do pretty well, although the car site doesn't have the reviewers saying "Don't drive this car because it's not a hybrid" or "I don't feel right about driving this car because it's ad had a woman in a bikini 'washing' it". Kotaku, Polygon, et al don't just want to tell us their impressions of the game, they want to tell us how we feel about the game and how we should be OUTRAGED that Yennifer and Tris in Witcher 3 happen to have their breasts pop out during the course of the game. The thing is, even if we don't use the reviews to buy the game, it's a good way to get a feel for the game's general quality, AND it also pays the bills for the developers to have that higher score. Last I'd heard, a lot of bonuses etc on games moving units were tied not just to those units being moved, but also to the metacritic score of the game itself. This means that a reviewer who whines about "But it has titties in it! BAD GAME!" and gets pandered to, will ultimately put a paycheck in the pocket of the guy who made the game. At the same time, these news sites don't just run reviews, they also do previews and are part of the overall hype machine for various products. So a smaller developer with a smaller publisher backing them probably wouldn't move nearly as many units on their own with their own marketing over having one of these companies hyping up how awesome it's going to be to be a Hacker in Chicago or an Assassin in France... Or a Rainbow Operative... (sorry, Ubi's been disappointing me lately). And unlike movies, you don't have a press junket for your stars, or a series of previews that play before a competitors product to ensure that people know your game even exists. If the industry and the GameJournoPro's mailing list don't like you, you could hit shelves and have the employees of your gamestop/bestbuy/whatever wondering wtf it is that they're selling now.

Eh, most other trade mag's can be different because the diversity of what's being sold within the mag itself. A movie magazine might be selling everything from laser tag to games to movies, but it's not enough of a money invested from one point that the editors pressure the reviewers to give Transformers a good score. The entire games industry itself is built around selling to itself. You open Game Informer (which is only successful because of gamestop's pushing it), and you're seeing reviews for games, advertisements for games, and discussion only about games. I don't ever remember seeing anything from a "related" industry that thinks the market share would be good to crack (no comic book ads, no movie ads, no car ads). So the Magazine Editors want to keep the publishers happy so they can keep the ad revenue rolling in and the review copies too. Publishers want to keep the magazine/website editors happy because that means their ad's and games get better press, and nobody cares about the consumer.

It is... it may not be hyper obvious but it's there. Probably the best example of this is the Madden Franchise vs the Warriors series. Now, I'm a Warrios fan (Dynasty, Samurai, Orochi, you name it), but I'm not much of a madden fan. However both operate heavily on the same iteration process with nearly yearly updates that don't really change the formula (Call of duty is the same way) but Madden (and CoD) are both scored quite highly while the Warriors franchise is quite low. It doesn't help that we hear stories like the fact that at a Watch_Dogs press event all the press members got a free Ipad or similar. Watch_Dogs is probably the best example of this. The game is MASSIVE and is probably the mediocre spearhead to a franchise (you don't put that much work into a game and not franchise off it anymore it seems) and wasn't considered that great on reception by most people I've talked to/seen discussing it. Looking at the Metacritic for it it's got an 80/100 score from critics, with most critics giving it a passing grade, the users are closer to 6/10. I realize that scores are ultimately subjective, but like I said, most people who talk about the game dislike it because of the stupid plot, rampant sexism, and the wierd controls/design decisions. For the record, Madden 15 gets about an 80 on the metacritic while most recent Warriors game (Samurai 2) getting a 76. They are getting better than they were before. Although nothing will beat the embargo on magazines for Arkham City's reviews. With the publisher declaring "The only way you can run it during the month the game comes out (it came out mid october) is if you give it over a 90% and put it on 60% of your front cover." And this is just me personally, but I don't think Arkham City was worth the 90%+ it gets. It's higher than Asylum, but the gameplay and overworld aren't developed enough from the previous game to call it "AMAZING!" or what have you.

On public radio, several years before he ran for the presidency. Oh, you mean the one where he probably said the exact opposite of what was reported by the McCain campaign? http://audio.wbez.org/Odyssey/CourtandCivilRights.mp3 The original Audio program from 14 years ago.

Well as much as we all really appreciate your insight into this matter you are misunderstanding something fundamental about this debate GG is just the symbol...consider it a metaphorical battleground , this is about the perception and resistance to SJ changes from certain people. Its an unnecessary battle I keep telling my debating foes. Most of the outrage is exaggerated and unnecessary and is more about the fact people are tired of being told what is acceptable in this game or what is offensive Volo is intransigent. He refuses to even attempt to have a rational debate ...but he is entertaining See... this is what gets me. I've always viewed "GamerGate" as being more about the fact that the Journalists in the industry have a tendency to give passes or nitpicks based on how much money the publishing company gave to their particular reviewing website. It was something that was broiling in the industry for a while before a particular event... specifically the fact that Zoe Quinn turned out to have been sleeping with at least one of the guys who gave her game a lot of publicity even though it (by accounts I've read) was A) claiming to donate to charity and B) wasn't actually that good. However, the above has ended up being clouded because the journalistic media doesn't want to lose it's major money pits, so instead of addressing concerns that they aren't being fair to games based on where their **** goes or how much money comes in, they began a full on offensive against their customer base declaring that to care about Quinns personal history and dirty laundry (which is what brought up the revelation of the journalistic fraternization), means that we're sexist **** who are attacking women in the industry and the portrayal within games in general. And it didn't help that Sarkeesian, controversial from the get go, was coming out with a series of badly researched propaganda pieces on the subject. Add in four doses of 3rd wave femenism, mellenial assumption of inherent "The world owes me ****" and general Trolling and you have a giant snowball of bad behavior and extremism being used to characterize entire groups of people on the internet rather than actual disucssion about these two massive incredibly different issues. On one hand you have the issue of games media being incredibly incestuous and to tightly bound to the industry it's supposed to criticize because of targeted advertising and the genre in and of itself slowly maturing. On the other hand you've got the issue of sexism in the industry, being used as a microcosm for sexism at large. Those who have the websites, the views, and the clout in the industry want the first issue to be kept away from the public discussion, so they start tackling the second head on, and in as controversial a way possible in order to create the looming cloud of controversy and fighting amongst people who might agree on the first issue. This also summons those women who feel that the world owes them something because they have breasts and a vagina and, as such, the world needs to bend itself into the shape they personally prefer. we've also seen the media manage to link the two issues to a stupid degree, so that whenever the first is brought up immediately the second appears like the Loch Ness Monster demanding tree fitty. On the journalistic front, due to the nature of the enforced discussion, you won't see a change until a publisher (Or the ESA) comes out against the specialized journalism that has become Gaming. The only way for the reviews to be disconnected from the money is for the reviews themselves to become heavily mainstream. Where every paper/entertainment site has a string of reviews by somebody on staff who reviews games while other products are being sold in that medium. But for that to happen we have to cause a cultural shift to see video games not as a "Child's toy" but rather as an adult entertainment venue (not that way, get your mind out of the gutter). For that latter act to occur then you have to see games grow up a bit about how they reflect the world around them. Which does tie into the sexist aspect, BUT I don't think that you have to totally eliminate sexism. After all, for every thought provoking movie about trashbags in the wind (American Beauty) there's also a sexist jingoist romp that storms through theaters (Transformers1/2/3/4/1000). We should still have our Duke Nukem's and Saint's Rows, but we just need our Portal's and our Tomb Raiders to balance it out.

Its still funny Doesn't matter. it's wrong. Propagating lies especially under the veil of truth should never be something that you promote in any way shape or form. Wow..okay lets get pedantic I didn't know it was false when I made the post, I now know so I won't propagate it but I still find it funny. Is that statement acceptable ? It's pretty easy to figure out it's false if you know anything about MacArthur during the Post WW2 Japan years, or the simple usage of words then as compared to now.

So... They're harassing a game company for posting that they've made a female playable character in this particular game after that particular game series had been yelled at for NOT having those characters before. Sucks to be Ubisoft.

This is actually a good point most people forget in favor of war drum beating. It's also an issue in film, as well. Should be pointed out that GTA is the leader in dong display (GTA4's lost and damned had a scene of a contact showing his junk, and 5 has Trevor dropping his pants). I forgot this was out on tuesday.

Its still funny Doesn't matter. it's wrong. Propagating lies especially under the veil of truth should never be something that you promote in any way shape or form.

Most hilariously useless part of MGS4? In codec calls with the female characters you could shake the controller and the characters breasts would jiggle... I **** you not. Where's the "Women are works of art?" piece on THAT game? I mean it's a game where women slink towards you in skin tight body suits. https://youtu.be/cOQnjaNorGE?t=7m57s Side note, the mocap for these scenes were done nude from what I've heard... also the entire group of women that you fight in that game are modeled after real world models (This one is Lyndell Jarvis).

I'm not with you ? Are you saying a stripper or hooker can get killed in RL? I'm saying that people are complaining about how "easy" it is to use a hookers services, and then kill her and get your money back in game... when you can do the exact same thing in Real Life with similar effects. You know what would be interest but outside the scope of GTA? Making it so even if people don't catch you killing the hooker, the police could figure out you're responsible through evidence if you're sloppy and don't hide the body and whatnot. Then you would have at least 1 star forever. That would be neat. Too bad that's too much to ask for. Thats a good idea, I don't get why people would kill the hooker after services rendered. Its not worth the money ? Because the amount of money you get back is tiny, and the possible chase ensuing could be significantly more expensive. And the thing about that system in GTA is that 1 star means you'd have cop cars always flying from out of nowhere to try and crash you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywaCm9wrKqM The lead of Star Wars Republic Commando talking about dat game.

I'm not with you ? Are you saying a stripper or hooker can get killed in RL? I'm saying that people are complaining about how "easy" it is to use a hookers services, and then kill her and get your money back in game... when you can do the exact same thing in Real Life with similar effects.

If I'm not mistaken, that is the reasoning behind removing it. ... So should we also remove bank robberies, car jackings, massacres, and drunk driving for the same reason?

You know what I think is hilarious? That we're considering removing prostitutes from GTA V when, in reality you can do the exact same thing to a real world stripper and have the same effects (although probably less car chases and more "Who done it?"

As someone who liked the comic, this is pretty awful. Not nearly as bad as the AMC Preacher though. Haven't watched a lot of TV recently, any suggestions? They can't really steal much about the storylines from the comics given how.... adult things get there (a tarot deck raping and impregnating a woman for example)

Actually no, I'm just assuming that you have the same views as Anita because you're defending her points. As part of that you're making comments about how a games world reacts to the players, while obviously having no knowledge of such a world, and having a mythical idea of how a game should work vs how a game can actually be made to work.

Thanks for the evidence mate. Again, the very fact you don't play the games you're trying to say are sexist, just makes you sound like the Fox people without the benefit of Geoff Keighly in that clip about Mass Effect.

Could we not do the strawmanning? It's not like there is no other way to notify the player that within the game world, blowing a prostitute's brains out after paying her for services rendered, is rightfully considered to be ****ed up, without making women unkillable. I mean, being willing to draw the kind of heat such murders would logically incur, for what's basically pocket change, should be the equivalent of walking around with "I'M MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND HAVE ZERO CAPACITY FOR LONG-TERM THINKING" written on your forehead, and even purely from a verisimilitude standpoint, every questgiver NPC should treat you accordingly. Here's the crux of it. They do... it's why you get a wanted level in the game for killing people. And you obviously haven't played the game we're discussing. And you obviously haven't understood a word of what I've been writing. You're asking for the entire game world to treat you like a violent sociopath because the game gives the option of acting like one. You're asking for a perfect game that adjusts the outside world based upon the players choice within the game world of how to play. This is a flat out impossibility, but two of the characters are treated as violent psychopaths as part of gameplay, and storyline. That's why I said you haven't played the game at all, because if you played, you'd know that Trevor is treated as a violent psychopath from the get go and just keeps going. Or are you asking for there to be gameplay killing consequences for the murder of a hooker? Where you are dragged through the modern day real-world legal process including the years behind bars, all in the name of making women feel like the protected unicorns they are? You're trying to say that Anita's correct in her discussions and that all of these examples she gives are correct and that men are misogynistic rapists at the drop of a hat (or at least that's what I've been getting from your posts and various veiled insults you toss out), and therefor women in game world should have serious consequences attached to the bodily harm of their bodies. Here's the thing bucko, in GTA V the amount of money you spend/retrieve from a hooker (if you want to put that much work into the damn side bit) is absolutely trivial. It's a case of "Bill gates loses more money turning around to retrieve a dropped 1000 bucks than he does just keeping going". Because if you kill the hooker to get your 50 bucks back (or whatever) you might have to fight off a police chase, plus you're spending the bullet, which costs a pile in GTA land, and you could just go drive a taxi or a tow truck for thirty minutes and get your hooker money back 10 fold. In the Hitman Absolution example (of the gameplay she showed anyway) your score takes SIGNIFICANT hits from killing innocents. The entire point of the game is to get in, kill your target without being noticed, and get out without disturbing anyone. In the context of the scene she displayed, the player went deliberately out of his way to beat up the women in that back room, and drag their bodies around. But Anita still treats it like it's unpunished because you don't have a magical security guard show up and shoot you in the head for even thinking about it. THAT is why people hate Anita and those who espouse her views. BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO ****ING CLUE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT within the context of the games. Anita is no better than Fox News in this