Orogun01

Boy, did he multiquoted the heck out of us. @Alanschu: the phrase "forcing the issue" was something I deliberately choose because of two things, the type of rethoric that its being used (Tropes vs Women and the like) and the fact that there isn't a clear idea of what the women's vg market is. BTW I do agree that growth in the industry is a good thing (as I like being employed) but with what's going on with AAA releasing less games and hiking up production costs, that growth is unlikely to be lateral. You touched upon crowd funding, which is a great place to prove whether or not the "half of gamers are women" demographic is true. If there is a growing games for females market then it wouldn't be far-fetched to assume that a female targeted project would find funding.

If I may interject, I believe the issue of a visual hook is related to the fact character progression relies on player input in games. The player needs to be somewhat invested in a character in order to want to know more about a character. Visual hooks are an effective way of doing that and they are in no way restricted to just physical attractiveness, Shale and Ignus are two examples of the relation between looks and background that don't fall in the sexy category. (Unless you have a thing for flames and rocks)

I find the lack of Latinas in this thread distrubing

If you remember this guy then you have slept for 8 hours.

Afraid that you'll get an Egyptian curse?

But see, that's the part I really don't understand. Isn't the other side, that insists upon leaving certain body image art alone/inclusive, also a "very vocal minority?" I mean, it's not like I consider the postings of people on forums representative of the game buying population as a whole, in either direction. Most consumers still likely don't ever bother to frequent forums. If I were to guess (and note it's only me guessing), I'd suspect the actual majority would be more like GhostofAnkain (or myself, really, when it comes down to it) - where they really don't care too much one way or another, because for them, while options are always great, in the end what a character looks like isn't what actually defines whether they want to play a game or whether they think a game is good or bad. It does seem to me that there hasn't been enough research on what type of games this "50% are women" statistic that gets tossed around are actually playing, however. It wouldn't surprise me, tho, if RPG's are one of the genres that women tend to choose and/or that they're starting to play a lot more variety than many seem to think. At any rate, if the companies feel the female audience is growing, and they can make more money by trying to attract them further into the fray, so to speak, well...yeah. It's going to happen. If they later discover it's not bringing them more profits, they'll eventually try something else instead. Happens all the time. So if y'all are actually right, instead of just believing/convincing yourselves you're right, and it's just a vocal tiny minority, some of who never even play the games they're protesting against, all you have to do is wait for the companies to realize it. Actually upon close inspection of the study you can see that there is an overlap between the percent of women playing games, the percent of women playing games online and the number of people that play social games (Farmville). While I believe in artistic expression and I agree that video games like comics in the 90's have become homogeneous, I don't think forcing the issue is the way to go about it. But i'm sure that there is an ulterior motive behind the people who pursue this issue; whether they realize it or not. In my mind if they honestly cared so much about equal representation on games they would get a degree in computer science, or digital art, or any game related fields and be the change they want to see in the world. They can't really expect to whine loud enough until someone listens to them and to be considered equal on top of that, as if whining was something to be praised. Since when? A lot of people seem to enjoy comics, too, and cartoony body proportions certainly exist there. In fact, i'd posit they were imported from there. One would think that cartoony body proportions came from...well...cartoons. But then I don't think anyone is complaining about Betty Boop on the thread. Or Daisy Duck. Or Minnie Mouse. Jessica Rabbit maybe? That said massive mammaries in superhero comic books are a modern day hot button topic in comics communities as people wonder whether "breast size" actually counts towards existing characterization or if its just continually perpetuated titillation. Heck there was outrage - OUTRAGE - when DC attempted to have Wonder Woman wear pants a couple of years ago, much less doing something like...de-emphasizing Power Girl's bust (which also gets cries of outrage). On the subject of cartoons, there's an entire generation of cartoons that have been whitewashed and won't show on TV because of sexual and racist references that could be offensive to anyone. Which is a shame cuz Tex Avery made the best damn toons ever, and they won't show them because some kids may turn racist (but they still allow lil' wayne on tv, go figure)

In the case of WildStar the outrage seems to be more because its a change rather than a design choice. This signifies to many that they are buckling under pressure or trying to pander to feminists. Game companies (at least the publishers) could care less about what goes into a game that doesn't make them money, they probably interpreted that study about game demographics that says that women make up about half the gamers wrong. So pandering to what they perceive is a new growing market when in reality its just a very vocal minority.

I too often dream of someone purging the Ultimate universe from existence. The point was that it was an Universe where all bets were off an characters could be killed, but now its more like an Universe populated with edgy teenager version of Superheroes. I like GoG, it's one of those good cape comics that fly under the radar. On that note I can also recommend X-Factor.

In the regular universe they are now the Marvel equivalent of the magic bus, with super powered kids. Although Reed still shows on major events every time they need someone smart to do something ridiculously stupid. Personally I think he doesn't even care ever since WWH; when the smartest man in the world agrees to shoot the Hulk into space in a rocket all I can assume is the he either doesn't care or he isn't that smart.

Is not a matter of personal taste, I've seen the before/after and the makeup/no makeup pictures of Korean girls. Google it if you don't believe me. Also, were the girls you knew born in Korea or is it like a Korean mix? **** off!

A common misconception about creativity is that it happens ex nihilo, that kid may just be a writer that wants to work on a Star War story or that has a Star Wars story and wouldn't like to jump trough a series of legal hoops and make a Promethean effort to reach George Lucas. OTOH, these spinoffs are already happening in the form of fanfiction, copyright is just there to make sure that no one else but Lucas makes money. This situation is otherwise known as the central argument of Das Kapital.

Depends on the woman, just like with all ethnicities. I never heard of any other ethnicity where a husband may successfully sue the wife because she was ugly before surgery and then the kids turned out to be ugly.

Then Alan Moore is evil incarnate. Was there ever any doubt, a long haired, scruffy beard loony. It's no wonder that he's Shiny Morrison archnemesis.

Korean women are some of the most hideous creatures without makeup or surgery.

Your logic is sound only as long as the ideology remains "pure", the matter is that there is a gap between ideological meaning and belief. People are driven by belief, they wove their ego around a belief system so that it supersedes their needs but it doesn't suppress them. Said needs are only displaced and projected onto the belief system. Since there isn't a separation of the ego and the superego perpetuating the latter is an act borne out of the same selfish desires that drive us. For true believer an affront to their belief system is worse than an attack on their own lives. Also, within their own logic Hitler, Mao, and the other examples you provided are sane. They are only regarded as such due to demonizing and media control.

Well, firstly, welcome, and make certain you read the Flashman novels asap, for your anti-hero. Thinking about what's been written here, I'm going to crank up the waffling a bit and suggest evil comes from two sources, of which only the first is 'true' evil: 1) People who are fundamentally broken. They feel nothing towards others, and do evil quite simply because they feel icy contempt for ordinary people. Although they will often dress it up in all kinds of ideology. 2) People who are lead into evil by the three classic lines of authority (charismatic, pragmatic, traditional) by one of the first type. Many people _unaccustomed to making meaningful decisions_ get confused and add in a third type where someone in pursuit of a wholesome aim, but lacking facts or analytical tools, chooses the wrong course of action to get there. For example, a medieval 'doctor' would prescribe you nonsense, and charge you for the privilege. Yet I doubt they were evil. I'm going to do you one better and say that evil comes from only one source: selfishness. Sociopaths can still lead just lives without having a wealth of feelings, Ideologues might still have a strong moral fiber that stops them from losing sight of what's good. It just comes down to the point where your actions might hurt someone else and balancing self-interest against the well being of another.

That's where evil and good start to get interesting, chaotic vs lawful as well. My take is, if the conquistadors perceived the aztec culture as evil, their lawful good course was clear. Slay as many as necessary, just crush the evil and force them into the arms of christendom. Death of a million is peanuts compared to the whole races spiritual salvation. If the conquistadors resorted to treachery to reach their goals, blackmail and murder, stuff they know is basically wrong. The end still justifies the means, they're still good, just not lawful good. If the conquistadors did it all mainly to get filthy rich by looting gold and everything else was just an excuse, then they were evil. Or it could be some middle ground in the neutrals. Maybe the causes were pure, but not quite enough if there wasn't a golden incentive. The Aztecs then? So they captured a whole bunch of people, ripped hearts out in sacrifice to some gods? If they did it just for the giggles, or out of boredom, they were some kinds of psychotic evil monsters. But if they truly believed it's the good and proper thing to do, gods need to be satisfied or the whole world ends!! Sucks for the prisoners, but hey, a bunch of neighbors vs the end of the world? Could be anywhere from lawful good to chaotic good to chaotic evil. Depends. So the moral is that every time someone starts comparing ethics a bunch of people die and there is no clear good. Why do we need ethics and good again?

Oi! That's the Prime Minister you're talking about.

The guy with his name on the scantly clad women thread is complaining about boobs? Say it isn't so. Also I've been watching a lot of bad movies lately but that's only cause they're on episodes of MST3K

Not to say that it may be Japanese.

With Christian Bale? Is it wrong/weird that I find that movie hilarious? It is definitely satirical but I wouldn't go so far as to call it funny. You have twisted streak, I like that.

Apparently this will be a great year for publisher "In-House" funny that I never heard of them. I wonder how they can afford to publish so many games?

Luc Besson's films have one of the most identifiable photography, that I ever seen. I can watch a movie without knowing that he was attached to it and it rings that bell.

Happy New Year y'all.

Where did you get the babies?