Blarghagh

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.

No, that wasn't my question. I'm not asking if male prostitution is crime or if it could be part of the real life crime world. My question is are they a part of the stereotypical crime world, i.e. the R-rated action movie car chase crime world? Because in essence, that's what GTA is.

GTA is a stereotypical, exaggerated exploration of the crime world, so it stands to reason that if it's stereotypical crime (i.e. hookers and pimping) it should be included. Are male prostitutes a stereotypical part of the crime world?

I'm with Oerwinde, my comic book knowledge is pretty limited even though I occassionally read some so I'm glad I've got other people's interesting theories to keep my brain roiling. But I'm very surprised that SHIELD, which was a guilty pleasure for a while, has now become my most anticipated show.

Minorities have been victims of society - are they off limits? Women have been victims of society - are they off limits? The differently abled have been victims of society - are they off limits? The poor and homeless have been victims of society - are they off limits? If the answer is yes to each, then you've got a game of white, rich men who have no disabilites... In some ways, it can be argued that white men are victims of society (after all, the "toxic ideals of masculinity" are imposed on them too where their ability to conquer women is imbedded in them as a sign of their worth via patriarchy as even feminists make fun of virgins and the vast majority of suicides are white men) so I assume we can just stick to purple cartoon characters. It's an argument I've seen raised lately about narrative diversity. A developer told me about concerns that the things you are allowed to portray with women (or minority) characters to not be labeled as sexist is very small. You can explore thematic content like alchoholism via a male character because then it's just a good character as he's a person with flaws. Do it via a female character and suddenly your character is representing all women as drunks. I wonder how many of the people now screaming about female representation in games realize that they played a significant part in creating the divide.

Oh my god Arthur Chu you spineless little absolute ****. Well, I'm glad we know why you say these "good things" against #GamerGate it is so "people" will "like" you. But when I fight for better rights for homosexuals, transgenders, differently abled, women and even goddamn animal rights it is because it is in accordance with my values and also THE RIGHT ****ING THING TO DO you totalitarian two-faced nazi ****. As a European, I can say that I laugh at your totalitarian puritanical horse**** in the same way as I laugh at tea party members, you are the worst of the right wing extremist mother****ers on the planet and I cannot believe that in America you are considered to be on the LEFT side of the spectrum.

What bothers me about these so-called progressives like Chu is the idea that anonymous posting is inherently bad. I cannot count how many people I know with issues that for years could only find an outlet online. Closeted gay and transgendered people, ashamed rape victims, depression sufferers - their online anonymous outlets literally saved their lives. It literally saved MY life and allowed me to become an at least somewhat productive member of society. If silencing a few neo-Nazis being dumb jerks online means removing that outlet, then seriously, screw that. Nobody who is for any type of human rights can seriously say this is a good thing. This is the speech of closet republicans, which Chu very obviously is.

I've never played a GTA past GTA 2 and I don't recall that function being there, but I will defend to the death its right to be there. First of all, simulated violence isn't real violence, in fact most research I've read suggested that simulated violence decreased the likelihood of simulated violence happening in the real world. Crime is a forbidden fruit type thing and unfortunately prostitution very much falls under that, a game exploring crime (whether for entertainment or serious drama) should have it. Plus, removing the ability to harm prostitutes in GTA only cements their status as a "special class" or to state it more seriously, "not the same as actual people" - I'd say this is more offensive than anything else. Then there's the question of "if you do virtual (safe space) violence, do you have mental issues?". I know a few completely well-adjusted, productive members of society who are deep into things such as rape fiction or BDSM. Are they into sexualized simulated violence because they have serious mental issues? Or are they just people exploring darker sides of the human psyche from places of complete safety? Because I'd argue shaming people for killing a nonexistent hooker in GTA holds the exact same grounds as shaming those people; namely, absolutely none.

Everything Arthur Chu writes in there makes me feel so sorry for him. It must be hard to be so cynical and full of hate. No, I take this back. He's not cynical and full of hate. He's just very, very dumb. In fact, everyone involved in this conversation is pretty dumb, even the pro-#GG side.

Everything Arthur Chu writes in there makes me feel so sorry for him. It must be hard to be so cynical and full of hate.

They do.

Why did Brent Spiner claim he was your husband? Darth Raven used to be a regular here and was a porn star so you've been trumped by just about every poster already. And then there was 'him'. Some say he was the love child of Ron Jeremy and Hugh Hefner. Others say he was grown in an Auckland laboratory located between a sex shop and a brothel. We only know him as, Shryke. Darth Raven was a porn star?

Sorry for this empty statement then Longknife, but: If anything, your posts are always interesting and make me think about things in a different light, whether I agree with everything you say or not. Back to a pure #GamerGate thing: Female pro-GG developer Jennifer Dawe (@GMShivers on Twitter, the developer of SeedScape) claims a rather well-known journalist (she either declined to name or I simply haven't found the comment where she did name him) offered her free coverage for her game on the condition she denounce GG and state that GG's goals and convictions are all unfounded. Take from that what you will. If it's true that this happened, I'm wondering how well this journalist thought it would go to give a corrupt offer to someone who stands against corruption in games media.

I see the difference, I'm just saying it's still very disheartening.

This is one of the major issues I've had with the current wave of feminism (and here's where I get a little angry over it too). Cover up the women or representations of women, they're bad because it turns men into lecherous pervs who objectify them? You like being sexy because you have internalized misogyny? That's the ****ing "put on a Burka" argument. That's ****ing misogynist. That's ****ing throwing Annette Kellerman into jail for wearing her one piece bathing suits. Women have FOUGHT for sexual independence for ****ing decades, for being able to do with their bodies what they want to do, for being able to wear whatever they want and express them in the way they want. ****ing right-wing infiltrants pretending to be "born again as progressives" like McIntosh and Miles Cheong while espousing all the exact same ****ing kinds of Nazi anti-freedom, right wing moral censorship bull**** are NOT taking this away from them.

I recommend the interview, Bruce. It touches on some interesting things about objectification of women from someone who deals with it every day.

Trailer for the new Pixar movie, Inside Out: Think it looks hilarious, hopefully Pixar back on top of their game.

I think jokes would just devalue the absolutely confused feeling I had when it happened.

A pretty unique moment in my life, I went to the toilet but when I tried to open my zipper instead of opening the little metal bits exploded everywhere.

BruceVC defending Volo? I guess I know why Volo's a zombie, because it's the apocalypse.