Blarghagh

Oh, I get it! It's a generation raised by overprotective moms.

So video games and metal. Did we go thirty years back in time somehow?

Those thing look like Warcraft 3 map editor, i can make that, but it's limited to whatever it's offer Even high end engines like UDK and CryTek are limited in what they offer if you're not a programmer. Try out what works. The best way to get your ideas for games heard is to make games. Start out with a smaller game, or make a vertical slice (a single part of your larger game). Source: Experience.

I'd rather have someone see me naked than reading my personal e-mails, if it's about the value difference.

I can't say how bad it is because most forms never make it to the shelves due to focus groups, but take from my example what you will. This was tiny shovelware company for mobile games that consisted out of five actual employees and fifteen unpaid interns. If it was that big a deal for them, I can't imagine what the pressure on an AAA company is. I'm pretty sure it's why Ubisoft consistently just makes **** up when faced with criticism. Bwahaha, female characters are harder to animate. There is literally no difference between neutral male and female mocap. The irony here is that I still consider myself someone who wants social justice and minority representation despite claims that I'm not. Most of the reasons I support #GamerGate are because of my "SJW-hood" and because #GamerGate is against those who in my experience harm inclusivity more than promote it (Feminist Frequency being the chief offender at this point). I have mentioned before (about a dozen threads previous) but what got me looking into #GamerGate more deeply was the part where my girlfriend tweeted this picture: And was subsequently harassed and assaulted for "supporting a misogynist hate movement" when she wasn't even aware of the controversy at the time. If your response to a simple picture that has nothing on it that is objectionable is so violent then there is no way that you're the good guy. So yeah, I started supporting #GamerGate because I was white knighting. Go figure.

No, I support BioWare's attempts at inclusivity and I also respect their right to make that content (although Bioware's manner of making a characters sexuality only matter to the person playing the game and not as a part of that character's life and personal experience is problematic to say the least and sends a message that a person only matters if they have a sexuality you can use). I've discussed the matter of unfair judgement towards minority characters (a white character can have flaws and he's well-written, a minority isn't perfect and it represents that minority and will get crushed by the press) in depth a ton of times in these threads so I have no desire to do so again nor be held to an arbitrary number, but here's a story from my own experience. When I was interning at a company that made awful shovelware games. This game was released but I'm pretty sure nobody even played it. I had a bar scene to populate with characters and a certain amount of props and customizable character bodies (ripped from the company's other games because they worked no-budget) to do this with. Now this was a WW2 wargame based on some B-movie war license, and it didn't have any female representation. This was the only place with civilian characters instead of officers, so at the center table, I put two women in poses as if they were speaking to each other. A sneaky way to have the game pass the Blechdel test, so to speak, since it was literally the only way I as an intern could change anything. Of course, it was a bar and the table props had bottles on them. Our PR guy flipped a lid when he saw it, since I had put "alcoholic women" as a "centerpiece" of this scene and if it remained this way, we were going to get our asses kicked, so I was forced to remove them and to be safe, not add any women in this single scene with civilians. The game came out with no women in it at all, because that would be safer than adding two women in the background. Contrast and compare to pretty much all games with strong female leads such as Tomb Raider and Bayonetta (written / designed and produced by women respectively) getting their butts kicked by feminist media when almost no games get attacked for having no female characters at all (there was the last Assassin's Creed, I guess, but that one makes no sense to me since there WAS an Assassin's Creed game with a female lead - I guess nobody noticed because she was boring and had no character flaws). There is a culture of fear when it comes to adding minority representation. Game developers by and large want to make games with more diverse casts. It's not coming from the game developers, the supposed "boys club". It's coming from moral authoritarian responses to games that project their own sexism and racism onto these games. Why do you think this is? Do you think game artists all want to design the same character? No, it's because (and ironically, people have taken offense to it) these things are designed by commitee to be as non-offensive as possible. They are all white men because they are terrified of getting their careers handed to them on a silver platter for making a minority character that, god forbid, people don't like. Hell, even the men are limited. I'm sure one of these guys must have had blonde hair during development, and you can bet your ass the focus group made a huge stink about him being an aryan ubermensch ideal and that's racist. I've talked to a huge amount of developers who are concerned about the same thing. You cannot write real characters and have narrative diversity if you use minority characters because you will get slaughtered out there, which is why the amount of female and minority leads has dwindled over the years (that, and the fact that nobody seems to buy them, poor poor Beyond Good & Evil 2, still waiting for you Jade, but with Ubisoft's track record lately...). (Note: This was my first internship at a game dev, and it's probably relevant to say that within the first three weeks of me being there I was explained by the CEO what to look for in reviews for mobile games to tell whether they're real or bought. *shrug*)

I have a way that the SJ agenda has changed the landscape. Less minority characters.

I enjoy cooking, so I don't really want to. I can understand the benefits of getting everything you need in just one container, though.

You're preaching to the choir here man. There have been serious efforts to shut the harassment down but there simply isn't much people can do to fend off anonymous trolls. It's all well and good to tell me "they in YOUR movement" but I still don't know who they bloody well are and how to stop them. But knowing this doesn't change the fact that some people in #GamerGate are still absolute ****.

I must confess I do not know how my private e-mailing of companies and careful consideration of what I tweet and retweet using a hashtag enables these people. They started doing it before #GamerGate was even a thing and they'll keep doing it after it fades. The media coverage may have brought more of them out of the woodwork but it's not really me or those on my side that controls that coverage, is it?

Tale did not state he supported the hardcore anti-#GamerGate people. This helps no one.

He's got a point though, #GamerGate can be pretty awful. But when push came to shove, the side that couldn't agree on anything wasn't the one that told me that if I don't join them in fighting then I was a terrible human being that needed to be purged. That was the side that agrees on everything pretty vehemently. I'm not willfully ignorant of anything, I'm very well aware and I'm choosing the lesser evil as I was made to.

Did I use it as such? I believe I've pretty graciously accepted said criticism and admitted that I share that criticism.

I have no control over what KiA discusses. I think it's unproductive towards #GamerGate's stated goals so everyone involved with that bit can just **** right off as far as I'm concerned. But like I said, amorphous blob of people. If I browse the hashtag, I see a lot of people constantly disagreeing with each other.

Hey, don't look at me. I don't care what she does at all. I recall that when this was "The Quinnspiracy" before #GamerGate even existed that I viciously condemned her harassment. The problem is that every time #GamerGate has forgotten her, somebody has to bring her back up. Sometimes it's a "pro-#GamerGater" (because the downside of being an amorphous blob of people is that anyone can claim to be one) and sometimes it's an "anti-#GamerGater" and most of the time it's herself, such as with the article adressing #GamerGate she recently posted (if you're really being harassed by someone, I'd say the correct response is not to legitimize them by engaging). In other news, I find it very irritating that the Apple store has declined to carry Papers, Please. I understand why, the uncensored nudity obviously, but it's completely and utterly nonsexual. Slap a parental warning on it and you're good to go. Now you're just censoring an incredibly engaging and educational experience.

Okay, since too many people are going on about it, let's get out some specific definition. When I accuse something of being censorious, I refer to this definition: Merriam-Webster defines "to censor" as the following: To examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc. Can we all agree that while Target is not guilty of this, it is definitely the goal of the petition that caused Target's decision and that by this definition censorship is not, by any stretch of the word, excluded to any entities other than government?

Obviously hella photoshopped, but something about the look and the mystery and the ornateness of the mask makes me think this lady is very pretty.

I don't feel Target is doing real censorship, but I feel it's the goal of the petition that caused Target to take this position. Have you guys read it? It is explicitly stated that the goal is to have eventually all other stores follow suit and such morally wrong content can no longer be sold anywhere. It's not "I won't shop where this stuff is available, listen to me your consumer", it's "I won't stop as long as this stuff is available, don't listen to this product's consumers".

Yeah, mobile games are rife with false reviews. You practically have to buy them to get any traction unless you go viral. I've sadly gained a lot of experience with this, being literally ordered to negotiate with these people. Never trust a review is doubly true for mobile games. Apple literally sells them themselves.

Obsessing. He got the wrong one. It's also not a codename, it's a response. Somebody else talks about them, you go "literally who?" Either way, I'd rather not mention them sooner than I would. It's a pointless subject that leads to pointless discussions like this. Because engaging with people who consistently engage #GamerGate on their own accord is harassment and "obsessing".

Think that's Quinn, not Wu.

Actually, this is about ethics in game journalism.

To be fair, I agree with Bruce to a point - I think it would be interesting to see how people would deal with male prostitutes in GTA and they are increasingly a larger part of the crime world so it's not outlandish to add them (and it would probably remove some of the voices shouting nonsense over "bah GTA is sexist!" because for some reason people are obsessed with things seeming "fair" to their false perceptions). I also think it would be interesting to see a female lead in GTA, and I think women should be allowed to explore their dark side via the safety of cartoonish fake violence which would be easier to do for them with a female avatar. It's obvious to see why Rockstar hasn't added a female avatar, however, from the responses to, say, Bayonetta and Tomb Raider. Where I often disagree with Bruce is the reasoning. GTA is a problem because it represents stereotypical victims as stereotypical victims in a way that harms nobody, and therefore it should be removed or compensated for? I struggle to see the logic. Alright, since Bruce is leaving that would mean we would be arguing with ourselves, so I'm going to segue to some slightly more #GamerGate related subjects: http://nichegamer.net/2014/12/adrian-chmielarz-interview-gamergate-vitriol-and-saying-enough-is-enough/ Fantastic interview with developer Adrian Chmielarz who worked on Painkiller, Bulletstorm and The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. EDIT: Bruce, would you be inclined to respond to this interview in at least somewhat depth? I'd be interested in hearing your view.

Freedom of expression must have some sort of symbolism or point? That's nonsense. Where did you pull that qualifier from? There's no "freedom" in it if you have to adhere to certain qualifiers. Even if it did, GTA is a cartoonesque, exaggeration of crime stereotypes. They are expressing and exploring the dark side of humanity by casting a light on these crimes, they are allowing their players to explore the dark side of humanity from a place of complete safety. How on earth is it pointless?

Do you understand the word "stereotype"? It is not a question of what the stereotypical view should be, it is a question of what it actually is. Stereotypes do not neccesarily reflect the truth. The truth of the crime world is that the sex industry consists of men and women. The stereotype of the crime world is that women get pimped out to stand on street corners and get picked up. Where I'm standing is, the "problem" seem projected to me and none of the "solutions" seem to do anything. I'd love to see more research done (because honestly some of the research was complete nonsense) but evidence suggests that this "problematic representation" of hookers (or women otherwise) in GTA does not translate back to the real world. If it doesn't translate back to the real world, there is no problem except perception. I don't even like the GTA games, I honestly could care less whether or not Rockstar put hookers in it or not, but at the end of the day I see no evidence that it harms anyone and therefore it remains their right to do so.