Blarghagh

In the dystopian future this game will feature a stamp of "questionable content" as the story of Mario & Pals contain tropes that might not be suitable for the justiceunawares. It's already got that. Damsel in distress, remember?

The first step towards Pre-Cogs.

What is a sexual act? For example in India a kiss can be considered a sexual act. Is undressing a girl with my eyes and staring creepily a sexual act?

I don't care whether or not someone considers games art because I don't think art exists. I'd love to see a game that stands the test of time, that leaves lasting impressions and changes the zeitgeist. It'd be a classic. Would it be art? Nope, because that's not a thing. As for "art history", the books and classes I've had on the subject generally ended up being specific. Chronology of painting styles and their users, for example. It was never really about "art" as a grand subject, it was always about specific things and I felt calling it "art" instead of using specific definitions cheapened it. It might say "art history" on the cover as a label but that doesn't give the word "art" any more of a meaning.

To be fair, some of the problems Longknife mentioned are even present in the CDC study I linked (i.e. equating sex while under the influence with rape).

Bulls***. To everything. Especially the last part. Where did those numbers come from anyway? Gromnir and I discussed this in another thread were we exchanged studies. The most recent CDC study was closer to 1 in 10 than 1 in 5, which is of course still ridiculously much and it's a real problem. Here's a catch though: That CDC study was about sexual violence and classified rape and other violence as different things. It also didn't classify anything other than the perpetrator using a male sexual organ as rape. If adjusted to also allow for "forced to penetrate someone", i.e. a woman raping a man in their definition of rape rather than calling that "other sexual violence", 1 in 10 of both women AND men reported being raped in their lifetime. I'll try and find the study. EDIT: Had to use different terms for board language filter reasons. EDIT EDIT: I believe this is the study: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/cdc_nisvs_ipv_report_2013_v17_single_a.pdf

If we would do a comparative analysis, I'd say everyone gets off pretty well compared to India.

Except you can't, you literally cherry picked the only instance in all my posts on the subject where that would make sense and this isn't mad libs. Religion has a clear meaning, definition. When you say religion, nobody is going to ask "psh what is religion anyway" and not look like an idiot. Nobody is going to say "religion" is a nebulous term. The word has a purpose. The word "art" does not. A lot of the things that people qualify as art, such as expression, emotion, imagination, passion, representation, craftmanship, appreciation, creativity, innovation, sentiment, self-expression, beauty, value and evocativenes, etc. are a fundemental parts of being human but "art" itself is just a dumb word with no meaning other than pretentiousness that devalues all of those things by throwing them together with a catch-all term and it needs to go away. I'm fine with people doing what you consider "making art", but that's not really what they're doing because art is not a thing. It's a void of meaning. It doesn't exist in any way, shape or form and it never will.

Interesting definition. How would you quantify "contributed something to the human condition"? Because that sounds like a bunch of floaty mumbo jumbo to me (no offense, I really am interested in how you quantify it). I suppose I could add "cultural impact" to my list of things I recognize over "art", but it's hard to gouge and a lot of things that aren't "art" have cultural impact. As for modern art that actually does such things as you describe, that can fall under craftmanship or self-expression. Like I said, you can recognize what people call the amorphous blob "art" as different things and remove the debate because art has become a silly word with no meaning anyway, a dumb emotional construct. If people would appreciate craftmanship or evocativeness or any of the other things I mentioned in my post rather than dumping it all into "art" it would be a lot easier. I mean, look at what Wikipedia has to say about Art: "Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities." It's bloody nonsense, that's what it is. As a game designer, I recognize a lot of craftmanship goes into video games. There's no debate to be had there, so why are we debating whether it falls under "the products of a diverse range of human activities". As aluminiumtrioxid said. You will find the inevitable "what is art" discussion on the first page of any art history book and while it is recognized that the question can't be answered fully because art is subject to change and reinterpretation you can still train yourself to appreciate partly by knowledge, and partly by intuition. Craftsmanship and evocativeness are both insufficient traits. A masterful craftsman can paint a photo-realistic portrait, but that portrait can still be of low artistic value. A B-movie poster can be very evocative, but also be utter kitsch at the same time. I have an interest in art although my knowledge of the subject is limited. I don't see what the great works of literature, art, architecture have in games. At best, they imitate them without offering anything new and of lasting value. At worst they're nothing more than a time waster. I'm pretty sure that's the textbook definition of classic, not art. "A classic is an outstanding example of a particular style, something of lasting worth or with a timeless quality." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic This is why I reject the notion of art, it's a nebulous term that's "subject to change" and "can't be answered fully" - i.e. it's nonsense. I can respect a classic, I can respect lasting value, I can respect emotional representation and self-expression. But "art" is just a catch-all term that really doesn't mean anything and causes endless debate because people keep insisting it does. I can respect a lot of things that people can consider "art" but the term itself needs to fade away like anything else that has no use.

Interesting definition. How would you quantify "contributed something to the human condition"? Because that sounds like a bunch of floaty mumbo jumbo to me (no offense, I really am interested in how you quantify it). I suppose I could add "cultural impact" to my list of things I recognize over "art", but it's hard to gouge and a lot of things that aren't "art" have cultural impact. As for modern art that actually does such things as you describe, that can fall under craftmanship or self-expression. Like I said, you can recognize what people call the amorphous blob "art" as different things and remove the debate because art has become a silly word with no meaning anyway, a dumb emotional construct. If people would appreciate craftmanship or evocativeness or any of the other things I mentioned in my post rather than dumping it all into "art" it would be a lot easier. I mean, look at what Wikipedia has to say about Art: "Art is a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities." It's bloody nonsense, that's what it is. As a game designer, I recognize a lot of craftmanship goes into video games. There's no debate to be had there, so why are we debating whether it falls under "the products of a diverse range of human activities".

Yes, but it's been well documented that he's not a nice guy.

What are you talking about? Cosby is infamous for how horribly he treated cast and crew.

You mean Roman Polanski? That guy's life has been a bag of rabid cats. I find it interesting that even the victim claimed the trial against him was unfair, which should indicate... something. I don't know what, though. Either way, the guy is obviously mentally disturbed at this point (if he wasn't always) and I'd say he needs a stint in an asylum rather than a jail.

Oh man, that's terrible. My moving experience was great compared to that. Although I still need to get lights for some rooms and find a way to get my gasline to my stove because it is freaking miles away.

I reject the very notion of art anyway. What do I care if academics consider video games art or not? Art is a pointless notion. I recognize craftmanship, creativity, innovation, sentiment, self-expression, beauty and evocativeness as seperate things, both objective and subjective, and I'm not going to devalue any of them by calling them all the same thing as this: The notion of art is to all of those things what creationism is to modern science. What do I care that Roger Ebert said games will never be art? The Walking Dead made me tear up, Amnesia made me feel more scared than any horror film, and Octodad made me rage so hard I broke my voice. What do I care who considers those games art or not when they meant something to me, personally? I answer the question of "are games art?" with another question, namely "who the hell cares?"

Hurl, I'm pretty sure that's the problem. It's not a reputable news organization and people are tired of it. Nobody trusted them with AAA titles because they were paid via advertising to sell us the games they were reviewing, but they were still trusted when it comes to smaller titles. Now that's over too, and people have decided they're done with them and they need to be replaced with something that they can actually trust. Either by reorganising with clear ethics policies that are adhered to, are getting rid of them entirely. For all this nonsense about who harasses who and who has acted unethically, it's really a matter of trust. They lost it, and then they talked down to the people whose trust they lost. At the end of the day, reviews aren't about culture criticism, people read them to find out if they should buy a certain product. It's consumer advocacy 101, and it's about time games has something worthy of it because these websites are holdovers from a time when games were still niche stuff and they're going to have to adapt or die and currently it's looking like they picked the second option out of sheer stubborness. Like it or not, "the redpill movement" is a name co-opted by "the manosphere". I mean, okay, you can use it in any sense you want to, but the original question was "what do I mean by 'redpiller terminology'", and the answer is "the terminology you're likely to encounter on r/RedPill, the number one site google brings up when searching for 'redpill'". I wasn't actually speaking specifically to you, I just wanted to clear it up because other people in these threads have mentioned the practice of redpilling people which had nothing to do with the version that was "co-opted" that you mention and your specific definition might misrepresent what they mean or are doing. As for it being "co-opted", I'm pretty sure much more people know about the Matrix than some obscure MRA website.

Why hide it? Breaking Bad is one of my favourite shows, so I may be able to help with my expertise.

Yeah the Escapist has become one of my go-to places. Shame about Movie Bob being there, though. What a douche, deliberately antagonizing people to make the situation worse.

I have returned to the land of the internet. Also, carrying washing machines and dryers and such up 5 flights of stairs because my new apartment building has no elevator isn't a picnick and now my muscles ache.

I am very disappointed in how this thread has gone in my absence. What does BDSM have to do with anything? Also, for those confused about redpilling, it's simple: It has nothing to do with those ridiculous bastards at Return of the Kings (that website is as stupid as any radfem moron complaining about a shirt) other than the fact they consider their ridiculous nonsense to be such. You can redpill someone on any subject and they can have varying levels of truth. Any wikileak for example can be considered a redpill, but so can any conspiracy theory. In the case of #GamerGate it's about showing evidence about nepotism and corruption in games media and the industry. It's up to that person to decide whether it falls closer to the former than the latter. Anyway, I really enjoyed that article on how modern feminism is in danger of becoming toxic other than come on, way too late, of course it's toxic. It's as stupid a debate as whether gamers are toxic. They're on the internet.

I thought the original argument (which I myself subscribe to) went more like "if you have a sexy male armored practically and a sexy female in a chainmail bikini, then yes, the female model probably exists to titillate the male fanbase while the male one is a classic empowerment fantasy". I'm all for equal-opportunity objectification (say, game takes place in a climate where you'd get cooked alive in your fancy plate mail, so everybody's running around half-naked and sweaty), but being restricted to metal bikinis in an environment where they're clearly not practical (and, to add insult to injury, where male models get armor that wouldn't result in them being killed messily) is not what I'd call particularly empowering. That's a much more specific argument that does apply to some settings, yes. It's also one I completely agree with, chainmail bikinis are nonsense. (To be fair, since I've supplied a male oriented example for a lot of other things, I suppose this could somewhat equate to a barbarian walking around a frozen tundra in a loincloth? I've seen that once or twice, I guess. ) EDIT: Paraphrased of a tweet I saw: Feminists - "We have to stop the idea that women are more interested in fashion than science... LOOK AT THAT GUY'S SHIRT" I laughed, but someone is going to point out "bwah that's a gross oversimplification" so I better point out that I know it was in jest.

Take your time, I won't be able to get back to internet until next thursday. Only 18%? I'd say a fifth is a significant segment consider we've well established that AAA Gaming is still very much male dominated. I don't know how accurate it is to declare all female players are playing women, and all male players are playing men. I've played Mass Effect with Femshep before because she's simply more interesting than another grizzled space marine. On the other hand, I also know a lot of women play manshep for "roleplaying purposes", in the same way almost all yaoi fanfiction is written by women.

Yes this is true, but is acting in accordance to society's ideals inherently misogynist? Is reaching those ideals in a power fantasy "internalized misogyny"? Also, is it misogynist for games to offer mostly sexy character options when the overwhelming majority of their female fanbase wants that option? Is it misogynist to not offer a less idealized version if it's economically pointless to do so because nobody or next to nobody will even use it? Also, male video game characters are overwhelmingly attractive - in fact, a common criticism is that many games have male characters that win the affections of many women as a power fantasy, showing that being attractive to women is a power fantasy for men. Is that internalized misandry, the fact that to be powerful means being able to attract women? Because supposedly that's the same thing, that being sexy is a internalized misogyny based power fantasy because it's only meant to attract men, that being attractive to men is to be powerful in this society? And with manorexia being an almost literal epidemic, is the perceived need to have an attractive body to be worthy of attention a solely feminist issue? Are video games responsible for pumping money into options that aren't viable because video games are somehow responsible for changing society? Is the assumption that female beauty is an ideal to attract men even true, considering the fact that women overwhelmingly answer criticism over make-up by men with "I'm wearing it to impress other women with my taste, not to attract men"? Is sexualisation inherently linked to objectification? Is it inherently linked to tight clothing (i.e. would it be better if western women wore Burkas)? Side question: I am nervous even asking some of these things, even though as you have pointed out that this is an echo chamber or at least a safe space to say it, simply because of how unacceptable it is to the modern internet crowd (twitter, tumblr, reddit) to even ask these questions. Do you think that's caused by a healthy attitude regarding women, sex and beauty standards? I mean, okay, if you think this thread is a huge circle jerk, come debate these things with us and prove us wrong. I'd love to see you add more than accusing this of being an echo-chamber and then going off to leave it that way. I mean, after every post I sorta see you saluting, saying "my job here is done" and flying off into the sunset.

No, the argument is that sexy women in games are created to be attractive to males, so attractive male characters are empowerment fantasies for men (which is fine) but attractive female characters are objectified and discriminatory. Get it? Not entirely untrue in all cases but most of the time it's bogus.

I've made some fallacious arguments about that myself before which I regret. Someone made the argument to me that well, women characters are idealized but so are most male characters. Like, not all (like Blizzard has a lot of fat dwarves and such) but most. And I had heard an argument before that made sense to me about that female characters are sexualized to pander to male gaze but male characters are solely a male empowerment fantasy so I repeated that, and I got slaughtered in that argument because it simply doesn't hold water. Being attractive is, by default, an empowerment fantasy so being an idealized, sexy woman is also an empowerment fantasy, but beyond that it's scientifically proven that toned, muscled male forms are attractive to women and the reason it's empowering is because it's attractive. I mean, if you do a google image search on "romance novel covers", which is almost entirely geared towards women, marvel at all the "male power fantasies" that are meant to be attractive to women. Not to say there aren't problems and differences in the approaches, for example I thought the controversy about Dragon's Dogma was completely misaimed because it focused on the lead characters. I had no problems with the leads, even with how overly sexualized some of them are (female and male) because they were all capable, strong characters who weren't made inferior to anyone else but that game that did have some issues considering the maidens and such you rescue being also overly sexualized, always in positions of weakness and practically orgasming to see you rescue them. It very clearly shows that idealisation and sexualisation are not inherently bad things but can just be used wrong, yet people are too dumb to see the difference and attack it just for being there.