BruceVC

I'm going to address your points by numbered instead of bullet...points(is there something you're passively aggressive trying to get across by using bullet points instead of numbers? ) 1- I agree about representation of women in games but I don't see the problem to be misogyny so much as bad writing, which we have discussed before along with the matter of how production costs affect target demographic and the product. 2-With bloated production costs publishers tend to go after the biggest paying demographic, if you would remember when everyone seemed to be after the CoD demographic that's a good example. Meanwhile they are unwilling to commit the same capital towards other target because of the expected return, they couldn't simply roll back to lower cost because of technology and gamer's expectation. The big companies are going to be making less games in the coming years because of this, if you pay attention to game releases you can compare how the number has declined since 2009 to now were the were no major AAA releases this summer. They don't seem to have an intention of changing their strategy. 3- Feelings are very subjective and opinions vary from person to person, tolerance usually means that we agree to everyone having some basic rights even if they don't deserve them or misuse them. You can't legislate feelings (although I'm sure one of our resident lawyers will tell me of some instance or bring up Hate Crimes) so I would argue that they don't have merit since they can't be conductive towards anything other than themselves. 4- They have approached this matter with inflammatory rhetoric, it is no surprise that this starts flame wars. Had they quelled their burning zeal they could have voiced their concerns with care. Both sides seem to be stuck on name calling but the onus of the cause lies on feminism since they are trying to change the status quo and the failure to change the status quo lies with feminism because they are stuck name calling gamers. 4 years since the Tropes vs. Women and what are they still doing? So is really difficult to ascertain what side should the real feminist be; although in my opinion they should oppose those that have tainted their name, but the fact is that this is one of those issues where there are no moderates. Just the people who reasonably try to achieve their goal and those that foam at the mouth while typing. Because of the nature of it and how it has escalated it won't be solved until either gamers back down or game journalists. Gamers have numbers on their side. A special note about the usage of hate speech, while it has been on both sides of the fence the ultimate failure is because of the unwillingness of the moderate voices to sit down and debate. On any polarizing subject you will find extremists but in most subjects attention has been given to those that can voice their platform in an eloquent manner, i.e: the debates between Atheism and Religion on Creationism. None of the parties have made efforts toward such debate on an open forum, I find difficult to believe that there are no representatives in the gaming media that could have taken the opposing argument. I would speculate that it has more to do with feminists censoring dissenting arguments and hiring practices that were influenced by politics. After all, you can't go from having a heterogeneous community to an homogeneous one with out taking out a part of the population. Edit: News on Gamer Gate, Niche Gamer (a gaming journal) has tweeted a call for game developers to write anonymously their opinions about GamerGate. Hopefully, some brave souls will allow their names to be publicized but I see this more of an attempt from Niche Gamer to become the alternative to corrupt media. I'll respond in detail later to this. I am at a customer now and can only make quick comments

Guys does no one have a comment about this video?

If you see a random pretty person on the street or TV and you go, "Wow." Do you then flog yourself you don't know who they are as a person? No I don't flog myself. I often notice attractive women and even try to talk to them if they in a line at a supermarket. I also go to strip clubs and watch porn. But what does your comment about me noticing an attractive women have to do with the objectification of women in games?

Yes that's fine I can accept that Ukraine's borders have irrevocably changed. But that doesn't mean that Russians new objectives around carving up other parts of Ukraine will be acceptable

You right the West wont send troops to Ukraine, I've said that several times. But as I have also mentioned numerous times you don't necessarily need a military intervention to get a country to change its political course or military aspirations. They just need to continue with sanctions which they will. And finally yes Ukraine isn't part of NATO or the EU but this doesn't mean it hasn't become an important symbolic area where the West is making a stand against Russian hegemony in the region. So the West does care about Ukraine

This has real world relevance how? All throughout the 90's every sitcom diminished the importance of men for comedic purposes (e.g: Married with Children, Friends, The Drew Carey Show, Seinfeld, etc.. ) There was no outrage from men, there were still action movies and a diverse representation of men in different roles. The same is true for women, the media is there you just have too look for it; Anita did and apparently thought they were all misogynistic. There are also a lot of realistic portrayal of women that are being denied simply because it doesn't comfort to their value system, or are we expected to buy that all women are perfect and above fault (I'm reminded how some people defended Charlize Theron role in Monster just on the basis that she was a woman killing men) Also, how about objectification of men in female targeted media? If men take offense to it will the feminists readily agree to take it down because you know; they're about equality. Or will they just call them MRA. We had this discussion before and it always turn the same, because somehow you have found a way to believe in modern feminism and live on the real world without massive cognitive dissonance; kudos for that really. Myself, I don't recognize their value system based on the fact that women are oppressed just because there is content that's offensive to them. Specially since that offensive content has done less to color my attitudes toward women than real women have. I can't take seriously the childish wailing of women who instead of adapting to the world and finding the media that they like; which is there because there is always something for everyone. Instead they choose to try and turn society on its head because apparently there is something wrong with liking women for their bodies. Also, you really don't see how instead of a moderate rally for the creation of new media that better represents their values alongside the other kinds differs from the current voicing of the end of objectification and how all media should be inclusive and non offensive. (Even going so far as to begin the concept of triggers) I would also like you to consider the fact that their actions (the few that they've made) haven't been positive. As for the misogynistic 4chan, somehow even from the beginning of this whole thing (4 years or so ago) have managed to make the distinction between real feminist; which they taken to calling women's right activist and the new wave feminists. Even going as far as holding one as an example to the other of what they should be. As a whole I find any positive comment about this kind of feminism disingenuous, even if there are good people in there their actions as a group always leave a lot to be desired and as a said before; 4chan has done more in two weeks for the cause of women in gaming that feminist have done in 2 years. In the end is your actions that are the measure of your character and I've seen the character both parties and I find feminists to be lacking. I wish you could prove me wrong. As usual you make some good points in a reasonable way. So in response We need to separate radical feminism, which don't support, to campaigns around gender equality. I believe you acknowledge this already Even though most movies have reached a happy equilibrium around fair gender representation I don't think games have. But huge advancements have been made. But for example, and this doesn't apply to Indie developers as we discussed in the past, when a company of the size of Ubisoft doesn't have a female protagonist this is obviously a problem for a large part of the fanbase Yes I agree that new media can be a way to address the perception around gender inequality but why should companies like Activision or Ubisoft not take there share of responsibility around this expectation. They are after all making money from female fans? Don't these fans who are spending money also have a right to be fairly represented? I also don't believe women are oppressed by offensive comment, but they and others are offended. So this needs to be recognised as relevant Finally my issue is always the reaction from some of the detractors of Anita and the Zoe. Even if I don't agree with Anita and Zoe they don't deserve the vitriol and hate speech they receive. This is something that just seems to be ignored. People seem more concerned with what they say but they don't seem that concerned with comments directed towards them like " a good raping will sort them out " But you do make some good points

I assume you will be buying one of those wristbands? Its for a good cause after all, all proceeds of sales go to the "kill the gamer campaign " ....

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9695-Quit-Using-The-Term-Social-Justice-Warriors\ Guys I strongly recommend you watch this video. I normally don't support Jim Sterling but he articulates the situation nicely and makes some excellent points I also agree with him when he says certain people label anyone who has a different opinion than them a SJW. This is often an exaggeration of someone's view and I see it sometimes on these forums. In other words if I don't condemn Anita and Zoe " I must be a SJW" Anyway watch the video and tell me what you think

That video made me laugh Yeah he is no different to the radical feminists we see with his generalizations around this topic. Not a very helpful commentary. I have seen it all before

Amazing how easily he's winning over people with just words like that, something to be said for timing. So I guess whores in games are a thing of the past. Fair enough, you may be right. This could just be opportunistic But is it also so inconceivable that this is what he really believes and the Zoe\Anita incident just gave him a platform to voice it?

Sorry I am confused by one of your points. Why is it an issue to buy girls toys for your daughter? What is the objection to this?

I never understood, as it was never explained to me since I have a white privilege and all that why is it that sexual objectification is bad. I get that doing it to real people diminish their actual worth because humans are capable of much. But in escapism it does serve the purposes of a specific narrative, and if fiction is capable of actually influencing your core values and your sense of self then maybe we should be looking towards changing violent media. Still relevant point of how everyone seems to be ok with violence in video games because people can tell the difference between reality and fiction but apparently they can't when gender roles are involved. I still don't see all these complaints as anything more than an attempt to subvert a value system and replace it with another that's more favorable to them. Let me explain, objectification of genders is bad for exactly the reason you mentioned, it diminishes the role and relevance of a particular gender. The gender being objectified, and its normally women, are basically demeaned by being objectified. Its not a realistic portrayal of them. I hear you about the escapism aspect but we can still have escapism and entertainment without objectification of women. Also what people are expecting is not a system that is more favourable to them, but rather a system that isn't offensive to them, Big difference

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/09/01/saints-row-4-developer-says-anita-sarkeesian-is-right-in-latest-tropes-vs-women-in-videogames-video/ Interesting, I guess we really should start accepting that there is a problem with the objectification of women in games when the creative director of a game like Saints Row acknowledges it?

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/09/02/gabriel-knight-interview-jane-jensen-on-the-revival-of-her-classic-adventure-game/ Some information about the new Gabriel Knight game, I never played the original game so this one will be a must for me

So you would support full contact competitive rugby between men and women?

He thinks he does and he has been able to do it in the past, like Georgia. But Ukraine is different. The West has drawn a line over Ukraine, not a military line. And sanctions will continue to be implemented and Russia will continue to be ostracized from the international community unless it stops interfering in Ukraine

Yes Volo, you clearly respect women. That's why you suggested that men and women compete directly against each other in sport, great respect there

And if you listen to Ukraine and their buddies that is what they've done. As always you have- or state that you have- a basic misconception. Primarily, you mistake a statement or implication of capability with a statement of direct and imminent intent. When for example Putin says he can take Kiev in two weeks it doesn't mean that he intends to, or wants to, it means he is able to if he's pushed to. What he wants is a neutral Ukraine, if they try and change that- as to most practical purposes they did during the February putsch- then there will be consequences. If the agreement with Yanukovich had been honoured none of this would have happened. I agree with this in the sense he did want a neutral Ukraine or a Ukraine that was more favourable to Russia and not the EU and things would have been different if Yanukovych had stayed in power But Putin doesn't get to decide the fate of countries. Even if those countries use to be part of the USSR. I suppose this ideological clash was evitable between Putin and the West. We might as well get it over with now

http://kotaku.com/meet-the-guy-who-spent-seven-months-killing-everyone-in-1629588651 This guy has seriously too much spare time on his hands

Why can't you play Alice because of EA? Is it because of Origin and the fact you don't want to use it. Alice is an excellent game, I loved it

Its just not that kind of game; a bit unfair IMO to criticize the game for something it never tried to do, or even pretended to have (in the same way that its unfair to criticize BG for not having PST's story). from our pov, actual story elements o' iwd were stronger than BG. as noted elsewhere, not only were bg2 released after iwd, but iwd were designed as kinda a low risk, quick development that were s'posed to sate bg fans before bg2 release. actual, a major goal were to get iwd out the door and on shelves with some meaningful time previous to diablo 2, and that didn't happen. what iwd were being marketed as, and sold as, were a limited and far more "linear" dungeon crawl than bg. truth-to-tell, we found iwd to be superior to bg in virtual all respects, and we missed the... companionship (HA!) o' the bg1 premade and joinable party members not at all. iwd looked better. it sounded better. iwd had better combats and more compelling locales. yeah, some level design did become a bit tedious in places, but as 'tween bg and iwd, we have very little difficulty identifying the superior game: iwd. the fact that iwd were so impressive is all the more amazing given the extreme limited and handicapped development iwd faced, but as a purchaser, we ultimate don't care 'bout obstacles. iwd were not a better game than bg 'cause developers were frequent rookies working with a wonky engine o' bioware's design. iwd were not better 'cause it had an abbreviated development cycle. iwd were a better game than bg, period. iwd did more right than did bg, regardless o' obstacles. that being said, we note once more that an obvious and superior enhancement o' iwd would be to give it iwd2 mechanics. oh well, yet another great opportunity wasted. HA! Good Fun! That's an interesting assessment, I didn't know any of that

But Gromnir I want to ask you something, you have alluded in the past that Obama is weak because he hasn't used military intervention is several conflicts around the world, like Syria . Do you think how he is dealing with the Ukraine crisis makes him weak? Should he do something different? a bit of a misrepresentation. syria is actual a good example. the impact o' a limited but forceful US response 2-3 years ago would have resulted in 2014 syria and isis situation being very different. similarly, ignoring putin predation and excess for many years has made the ukranian situation what it is. sanctions today is gonna eventual be effective in hurting russia. well, guess what, sanctions woulda' been effective before today. ask us what could obama do different today is myopic. HA! Good Fun! Okay, so you agree the sanctions are the best strategy?

I suspect otherwise. No I'm sorry , normally I would just ignore this comment but I want to point out how flawed your logic is. Lets say you right, and in fact I don't want you guys to comment on my posts...I'm a bad person...that would leave me being able to debate with ....with ...with.... oh that's right I have already commented that there are no female members. People like you and Amentep are the people I debate with because you are active on the forums and I enjoy our debates, Why would I try to cut you out my posts. Its illogical. It would be like a one legged man in an ass kicking competition. I would be denying myself a great time. So trust me when I say just because we often don';t agree it doesn't mean I don't enjoy our discussions and value your contributions to topics

Please ask your lady friends to join the forums. They won't be treated like a mouthpiece I promise But you post raises an interesting point, they don't like forums in general. They must have had bad experiences?

Not defensive, I dislike the intellectual argument path that this seems to be following. If we're all molded into gender-bias by the patriarchy, then a woman's view has the potential to be just as influenced by patriarchal thinking as a mans; the only value in their view would be if they recognized their own capacity for gender bias. But asking for more women in the thread is not arguing for more self-aware posts by those who recognize the influence their society has towards gender norms and expectations and instead is valuing an opinion simply because it comes from a preferred gender which seems to fly in the face of equality in representation. If we're not accepting the patriarchy induced gender bias, and we accept it is okay for some things to be gender biased, then we're still arguing for a random grab-bag of anecdotal evidence rather than trying to get a gauge of gender groups as a whole. Are you saying that in a topic about feminism that getting a women's perspective would not be pertinent? Do you think we would get the same input and personal views around this topic if it was just men discussing it as opposed to men and women giving there opinions?