ravenshrike
-
Posts
167 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by ravenshrike
-
-
Ineth, articles like that are written about Muslims all the time. Journalists who write that garbage should be rightly criticized. But why are we still talking about them 6 months later? (or 9, or whatever)
Is there any evidence that the game industry has actually changed because of these articles? Was The Witcher 3 cancelled? Is Ubisoft working on Assassin's Creed: Feelings?
Matching unreasonably angry people by being unreasonably angry is not healthy.
No, sporadic articles are written about that all the time, and rarely so explicitly on a major news outlet. Not to mention his analogy was flawed as a proper analogy would have had half of the MSM all pushing those articles at the same time within a 24 hour period.
-
In any case, pretending that GG is the Zoe Post is rather dishonest. GG actually began with the twelve articles by a bunch of Perpetually Outraged, Searching For Offense, Quick to Accuse Racism/Sexism/Homophobia/Privilege/Patriarchy, Holier Than Thou, Politics Before Fun, Unholy Cross Between Communists and Puritans, Twitter Lynch Mob Forming, Career Sabotaging, Social Justice Crusaders{coined by Correia} who decided that they were the gatekeepers of what is morally correct in gaming.
Dude, take the high road. Yeesh.
Ah, yes, well the story behind that is I promised on the escapist to not use 'social justice warrior' to describe people as it was imprecise as to what it meant. I figure one cannot confuse themselves with the above as it is much more specific.
-
1
-
-
Anybody who thinks gaming journalism's biggest problems are feminist infiltration and indie devs stealing exposure with their devil vaginas is ****ing stupid.
You picked two issues out of a list. Misrepresentation aside, what are you trying to prove by pointing out that you don't consider these two to be the "biggest" problems?
They're what kicked off the entire movement. Depression Quest receiving three sentences that could vaguely be seen as undue praise, and Leigh Alexander calling 'gamers' bad names. Not the fact that gaming "journalism" has been **** for decades, not the fact that most of the content is vaguely-rephrased marketing talk about games that aren't even out yet, not the fact that journalists can be fired for giving a bad score to heavily-advertised games. Not, y'know, actual issues with lack of professionalism that have been present for at least a decade before GG even existed. Gamers have been fine with those. Just how much of a shortsighted fool does somebody need to be in order to fail to notice how the entire industry of gaming journalism has consistently been terrible since forever, but cry bloody murder over the fact that it now also publishes feminism-flavored crap alongside the regular crap?
And once again people conflate the Zoe Post with GG. The demographics are rather different. Had the 12 articles never been written, GG never would have taken off. It would have remained the Zoe Post and petered out within a month or three just like every other ethics brouhaha over the past decade in games journalism. This of course ignores that it wasn't just Grayson. He was the only one accused to outright admit sleeping with her. Of course IIRC the other four didn't deny anything, which given that there was a lawsuit going on at the time has interesting implications.
In any case, pretending that GG is the Zoe Post is rather dishonest. GG actually began with the twelve articles by a bunch of Perpetually Outraged, Searching For Offense, Quick to Accuse Racism/Sexism/Homophobia/Privilege/Patriarchy, Holier Than Thou, Politics Before Fun, Unholy Cross Between Communists and Puritans, Twitter Lynch Mob Forming, Career Sabotaging, Social Justice Crusaders{coined by Correia} who decided that they were the gatekeepers of what is morally correct in gaming.
-
Wait, Furry Road is supposedly a "feminist movie"? If so, it fell on deaf ears (and blind eyes) as all I saw was a fun action popcorn flick.
They consulted with the Vagina Monologues writer to portray the wives better AFAIK. Didn't translate to feminist(of the 3rd wave bourgeois variety at any rate) to me, but I saw the film for the action and was pleasantly surprised by the performance of the actors.
Actually, the all of 4 or 5 lines the harem girls get prior to the death of the the one farthest along in pregnancy are standard 3rd wave feminist bull****. In fact, the one girl explicitly blames everything on men and their penchant for violence.
Of course the existence of a tribe of women who place bait and are perfectly willing to kill men(The only reason they don't kill Max is because Furiosa, who is one of their own, vouches for him. Otherwise he was a dead man walking.) for being men
utterly refutes said bull****. So the idea that it is propaganda for 3rd wave is hilariously stupid.
Having watched it a third time, I can honestly say while it is the best pure action movie so far, and probably for the year, the rest of the plot is some of the laziest I've seen in a large budget movie.
The fact that Bullet Town and Gas Town are both within sight of the Citadel is just plain silly and makes the existence of the convoy rather confusing. At most, they're a 2 day walk from each other. Then there's the "Green Place". If there was enough radiation around there to create crow people mutants, all of the old women there would be dead of radiation poisoning before the plants died off.
Humans are much more susceptable to radiation than plantlife. The other thing that confused me were the throngs around the Citadel. You're in the middle of the frigging desert, with very little greenery to support people.
Little enough that the War Boys were stealing people's blood for basic nutrients.
-
Well... everything is more expensive then back then. I imagine the film crews were cheap in the past now with unions (I'm suire they had them then) they get phaid well with benefits and the like. Even extras probably get paid decent money.
I wager if you made the original Mad Max now with the same tech it be vastly more expensive than it was.
Pretty much all the bikers and stuntmen in Mad Max were paid with beer.
-
1
-
-
3D done well is good. The problem is that 3D done well is not worth the expense to the movie company because there should be no immersion breaking pop-out effects.
-
I'll repeat myself, but it's nothing new in the Mad Max movies. the only movie where he is the center is the original. he's playing second to the tribe at the oil refinery in Road Warrior, and barely even there in Beyond Thunderdome.
anyway, Red Letter Media (the only "critics" worth a damn in today's world, IMO) just released their review, and it's basically 20 minutes of singing praises to Fury Road and Miller. so yeah, probably the best movie of 2015, unless a miracle happens.
Have you seen Kingsman yet? It's another really good movie that is easily in contention for the position.
-
So went and saw it again, this time attempting to discern the feminist superiority. The only area it's even applicable is the viewpoint of the
harem girls pre-death of the pregnant one. They blame all the evils and violence of the world on men. This however is because of the situation they found themselves in and the teachings of the crazy old biddy in the seraglio(At least, I assume that's how the redhead learned the concept of manifest destiny). It is subsequently overturned by the introduction of the older women. Besides their skills with weapons alone, given that it is improbable to say the least that all men they encountered would have been hostile, the lack of any among them means they pretty clearly had no problem killing any that crossed their territory no matter their intentions.
In any case, it's pretty much bunkem that any significant portion of the movie revolves around it.
What I'm going to be interested in is the director's cut because paying closer attention to the cuts present in the movie, it's pretty clear there were rather significant chunks of exposition removed. Having seen it twice, I still maintain it would have worked far better as an AU like Prometheus rather than try to tie it into the original continuity.
-
You're dodging the question. Would you accept an Alien movie with Ripley assigned to a lesser role and played by a much weaker actress than the main male lead? Hardy is nowhere near the same weight class as Theron.
Some random trivia: the original Alien 3 screenplay written by William Gibson, author of neuromancer, had Ripley going off her own way with Newt and the story then following Hicks and Bishop as the two leads. Instead, we got...the movie we got, where everyone is miserable and then dies.
Which, given my earlier statement of Mad Max only being in a cameo being an acceptable hook into the MM universe means... what exactly? That Gibson understands how to handle the iconic character in a franchise?
-
I've tried to figure out what all this fuss was about any of this gamergate nonsense several times and every time I've just been hit with a giant brick to the head of "don't give a ****." This is the stupidest controversy I've ever seen, and anyone who has put any effort into fighting for it in either direction needs badly to realize that we live in a world where a third of the population is going to be in prison soon for no objectively identifiable reason and that the oceans are going to be devoid of life within our lifetime and none of this ****ing matters.
The fact that volourn feels strongly about any of this is all the evidence I need that I have absolutely no reason to care about any of this, and anyone who does is profoundly stupid.
And yet you took time out of your life to whine about it on a videogame forum.
That's not the amazing part. The amazing part is that his feelings on any given subject apparently exist in a state of quantum entanglement with Volourn's and their strength on any given subject is directly inverted with his.
-
2
-
-
I would have no problem with a new Alien movie with a male lead. But part of the formula of that movie is the strong female scientist who ends up kicking some butt. Oddly enough they have the Predator movies set in the same universe, which tend to revolve around a strong male character.
I think people spend too much time worrying about this stuff, while the majority of the world goes about their business just hoping the movie is entertaining.
You're dodging the question. Would you accept an Alien movie with Ripley assigned to a lesser role and played by a much weaker actress than the main male lead? Hardy is nowhere near the same weight class as Theron.
How am I dodging the question? I said yes, I would have no issue with a strong male lead in an Alien film. I will judge it by its individual merit.
You can already argue that the guy that played the android was a much stronger lead than the female in the newest Alien movie. Although, once again, Charlize Theron was there dominating. (if only she knew how to run sideways!)
The crazy thing is Sigourney Weaver can still play a kick butt character, while Mel Gibson is pretty much past that. It's all about the strength of the actor, I don't care what their gender is. Why do you guys make such a big deal of it?
Except, once again, you're dodging the question. Prometheus was not an Alien movie. It was an Alternate Universe take on the xenomorphs. There was no Ellen Ripley. So, would you accept an Alien movie in which the script has a perfectly healthy Ellen Ripley relegated to the side stage but present for the majority of the movie and played by a much weaker actress than the actor playing the lead as a proper Alien movie?
In case it's unclear, I'd call bull**** on that one too, and be much more upset about it since the Alien movies resonate a lot more with me than the MM movies.
Are you sure you are not over analyzing this whole thing because you have become very defensive and unnecessarily sensitive to any changes to things in your life that you are familiar with because of a few changes that SJW really do implement? So you see SJ negative influence everywhere? There are a few people on this forum who already see things like this so it wouldn't be absurd if you having this misperception ?
While I initially responded to someone who was bitching about MRAs, I'm not really thinking that there's a giant SJW plot behind the change. I just think it's not a MM movie. The MM movies were always about MM's interaction(A man who in the first movie lost everything to barbarism and took vengenance upon those who killed his family, then tried to save what little civilization he found but by and large failed, until 15 years after that he FINALLY manages to help establish some form of civilization anew) with the post-apocalyptic world. MM:FR is decidedly... not. In Fury Road Max Rockatansky provides nothing that any nameless badass mook couldn't. THAT is my problem with the movie.
Addendum - It occurs to me that they could have had a much better hook into the MM universe if Furiosa had grown up in the society left behind by MM in Beyond Thunderdome which grew to have a tradition of sending out emmisaries to 'civilize' the wasteland.
Addendum 2 - Apropos of nothing in particular I would also like to point out to Hurlshot that Prometheus was apparently Scott forcing everyone in the AU xenomorph universe to permanently carry the idiot ball. There were more than a dozen points in the movie where if people weren't permanently carrying their idiot ball they would have avoided any permanent trouble
-
1
-
-
I would have no problem with a new Alien movie with a male lead. But part of the formula of that movie is the strong female scientist who ends up kicking some butt. Oddly enough they have the Predator movies set in the same universe, which tend to revolve around a strong male character.
I think people spend too much time worrying about this stuff, while the majority of the world goes about their business just hoping the movie is entertaining.
You're dodging the question. Would you accept an Alien movie with Ripley assigned to a lesser role and played by a much weaker actress than the main male lead? Hardy is nowhere near the same weight class as Theron.
How am I dodging the question? I said yes, I would have no issue with a strong male lead in an Alien film. I will judge it by its individual merit.
You can already argue that the guy that played the android was a much stronger lead than the female in the newest Alien movie. Although, once again, Charlize Theron was there dominating. (if only she knew how to run sideways!)
The crazy thing is Sigourney Weaver can still play a kick butt character, while Mel Gibson is pretty much past that. It's all about the strength of the actor, I don't care what their gender is. Why do you guys make such a big deal of it?
Except, once again, you're dodging the question. Prometheus was not an Alien movie. It was an Alternate Universe take on the xenomorphs. There was no Ellen Ripley. So, would you accept an Alien movie in which the script has a perfectly healthy Ellen Ripley relegated to the side stage but present for the majority of the movie and played by a much weaker actress than the actor playing the lead as a proper Alien movie?
In case it's unclear, I'd call bull**** on that one too, and be much more upset about it since the Alien movies resonate a lot more with me than the MM movies.
-
I would have no problem with a new Alien movie with a male lead. But part of the formula of that movie is the strong female scientist who ends up kicking some butt. Oddly enough they have the Predator movies set in the same universe, which tend to revolve around a strong male character.
I think people spend too much time worrying about this stuff, while the majority of the world goes about their business just hoping the movie is entertaining.
You're dodging the question. Would you accept an Alien movie with Ripley assigned to a lesser role and played by a much weaker actress than the main male lead? Hardy is nowhere near the same weight class as Theron.
-
I love the MRA outrage over this film so hard.
The tears sustain my lifeforce.
P.S. Also, the diea that men are so sexist that they hate strong female characters is ludicrous when you remember the popularity of Alien amongst men. LMAO And, that movie is DECADES old before the stupidity and evil of SJWs existed.
.... so are you saying MRAs don't exist or are you saying MRA Outrage is an "Ebil EsJayDoubleYew" conspiracy?
Just out of curiousity, how would you feel about an Alien 'continuation' in which Ripley was relegated to an underwhelming role by an underwhelimng actor with whatever popular male badass was currently in vogue and the second movie focused even more upon said character. Had they removed Mad Max entirely or had him only be involved in a cameo to show the continuity of the universe, it would be different. That's not the road they took however.
-
1
-
-
Mad Maxine was quite an experience, beautiful cinematography and headlong thrills, though not exactly a cerebral experience it makes no pretence at being such.
Mrs Nonek being far more of an action junkie was far more impressed, but I enjoyed it enough.
Now, now. Tom Hardy is not that bad of an actor.
It is however rather sad when the main protagonist of a Mad Max movie is not Mad Max. TBH it was a very good Charlize Theron action movie set in the Mad Max universe. Wasn't a Mad Max movie though. As for how much of a problem that is, well, it depends entirely about how much one is invested in Mad Max. Although Rhona Mitra was just as good in Doomsday and she didn't have to piggyback MM.
-
Aaand the first book by the man behind the Hugo controversy is now up for free on both the Baen Free Library and Amazon. As the man says
My publisher follows the same basic marketing philosophy as crack dealers. The first hit is free! If you like it, there is a whole lot more where that came from. -
Your definition of a con artist in regards to Kickstarter would seem to label most people as such. People change size and scope, miss release dates, and even close up shop regularly. I only see it as a con if they take the funds and run. There is no evidence of that with Sarkeesian, quite the opposite really, she has clearly used the investment to devote herself fully to the concepts of the kickstarter. The product does not look the way you want it too, but that doesn't really matter, since you didn't invest in it. If her investors were unhappy, then you'd have an actual case. As is, you have no ground to stand on and are just throwing out an unreasonable and unwarranted accusation.
I was watching Going Clear last night, and there is a similar argument made about L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology. He was a delusional madman, sure, but if he was running a con, why would he devote his entire life to it? Why would he sit in a room with an e-meter for thousands of hours trying to expel thetans? It doesn't add up.
Because he was a Sci-Fi author and he WON THE BET dammit! Also, perhaps a bit of a messiah complex at that point. Play a role long enough and you become it.
As for considering most KSs cons, unless most KSs are mild venue changes with little to no change in scope, how exactly does Sarkeesian's situation apply to them. I said POSSIBLY a con. I then said it was much more likely they got in over their heads.
Also, see my Producers reference above. The lack of contention among the investors does not in any way/shape/or form negate the con.
-
So, in order to point out corruption and con artistry I have to be part of whatever is being criticized? Where does that come in? As for the ton more content, none of the content for FF is relevant to her TvW series. And I notice that you still haven't been able to point out videos 1-5. That was video one.
You are nitpicking. She has produced a ton of content and her backers are not complaining.
I've seen a number of kickstarters raise more money and produce less. I'm still waiting on my games from the Space Quest and Quest for Glory people. Why aren't you railing about Lori and Corey Cole being con artists? They just started a second kickstarter without even finishing the first game, you'd have a much better argument there.
And holy moly, that 75 minutes of video was only covering one topic? Yikes. I am glad I don't watch this rubbish.
Possibly con artists. Much more likely idiots who got in WAY over their heads. There is a galaxy of difference in complexity between making a game and making a green-screen youtube video. Whereas Sarkeesian knew exactly what went on monetary wise when making youtube videos as that was her medium before the kickstarter and there is no appreciable cost difference between her FF videos and TvW videos.
-
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/video_share
Now, show me Youtube videos for the first five videos on that list.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs
You can go on her website for a ton of more content. Honestly I haven't watched them and don't really care about her viewpoint, but I think it's weird that you call her a con artist. If you are an actual backer who is unhappy with what she delivered, then you might have some ground to stand on. As is, you look like you are grasping for straws instead of criticizing her work, as Calax is doing.
So, in order to point out corruption and con artistry I have to be part of whatever is being criticized? Where does that come in? As for the ton more content, none of the content for FF is relevant to her TvW series. And I notice that you still haven't been able to point out videos 1-5. That was video one.
-
Anita is correctly labeled a con artist because she has yet to finish even stage one of the youtube videos she was paid six figures to create. She scammed money out of people but because her politics are correct(and here I'm reminded of the old joke about many small blood sucking insects) she gets a complete pass.
That is false, there are a bunch of her videos up on youtube. She is also clearly committed to the premise of her campaign, rather than sitting on a beach sipping margaritas (which is what I would do if I was a con man.)
Just like the game Hatred, she has a freedom of expression and if she can get people to pay her for that, then bully for her.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/video_share
Now, show me Youtube videos for the first five videos on that list.
$250 reward
38 backers
A DVD copy of all Tropes vs. Women in Video Games episodes in the web series. PLUS all of the above!
Estimated delivery:Dec 2012
2 years, 4 and a half months late and counting. The ****ing definition of con artist. As I ****ing said, the ONLY reason she gets a pass is because of her politics.
Addendum - The Producers was meant to be a comedy, not an instruction manual.
-
I'm very confused, how can characters be pro/against anything?
I am confused by your confusement.
In the poster that was thrown in the thread, Faith from Mirrors Edge is taking a side.
IIRC, EA had Anita Sarkeesian as a creative consultant on how to remodel Faith in Mirror's Edge 2.
How did you feel about that on personal level?
Do you think Anita is justified in this case or do you think her intentions are misplaced?
I realize it's not directed at me, but honestly they should have picked another woman to do it. Anita just screams that they're trying to capitalize on a PR stunt, and a lot of Anita's work is honestly misleading at best. Bring Jane Austen back from the dead, or pick somebody from the industry who feels that there is sexism in the workplace.
Not some random outsider who's only known because her views are... controversial to say the least.
Sure, I can understand that perspective. I think its unfair to label Anita ( or most person ) a certain way due to past comments or events but the reality is there are people who will automatically dismiss anything she says even if it is valid..yet I can also justify where some of the criticism comes from towards her
Anita is correctly labeled a con artist because she has yet to finish even stage one of the youtube videos she was paid six figures to create. She scammed money out of people but because her politics are correct(and here I'm reminded of the old joke about many small blood sucking insects) she gets a complete pass.
-
Except that IS the basic premise of the author of the article. Moreover, the asshat in the interview feels conflicted about coming up with the justification for the family. The idea of justifying something that gives someone an advantage over others actually causes him mental conflict.
Actually, no. "Conflict" is only mentioned in the text once.
Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.I see nothing inherently wrong in being conflicted over that. It's not the same as "being conflicted about coming up with justification for the family".
Basically you find it objectionable that people exist who dare to think about whether the way we're doing things is optimal or not, regardless of what conclusion they arrive on. Congratulations, you have (re-)invented thoughtcrime.
Yes, because despising someone because their first principles are utterly insane and that they must grasp at straws to justify a position that no rational person should have difficulty accepting in the first place is "(re)inventing thoughtcrime". There is exactly zero rational basis for accepting that familial good takes precedence over social justice if you accept equality of opportunity as a first principle as Swift and Brighouse do. Yet both of them are attempting to do so in the article, and looking at what's available on wiki they have both been doing so for the past 6 years at least. Swift himself is an authoritarian rat**** as evidenced by the last minute of that little soundclip helpfully provided by the article.
Article is not written by them, but somebody else that tries to portray their philosophies by using a few quotes from them that are put in order that writer of article sees best. So it isn't very good as source when you want to judge Swift's and Brighouse's philosophies, maybe little better than use it as source to judge Platon's philosophies but not much. Article seems to be more a brief glimpse to some philosophies that try to determine value of family and in at least in Swift case how that value would work in society which aim is equality.
I would point out that philosophers that come up with philosophies don't necessary believe that they are right ones to society in anyway, but extreme thought plays were you take one to a few ideologies and start to create idea of ideal society based on them to see if that would produce something that could withstand closer scrutiny. So for example lets take ideological values inequality is bad and family is good and lets see how these things come in together.
Because, of course, at this point in time I'm going solely off the article and not off of Smith and Brighouse's stated position of Liberal Egalitarianism. Wait, no, that's just exactly backwards. Liberal Egalitarianism is a rather specific ideology which is inherently self contradictory that attempts to combine the fundamentally incompatible tenets of Liberty and Egalitarianism. The article in question is merely one in a long list of failed attempts at doing so.
-
Monster Hunter Nemesis. Frankenstein's monster is a fallen angel that stole his reanimated skin suit from the Morningstar and was years later hired by Ben Franklin to help protect the US from things that go bump in the night. Unfortunately, Lucy's gotten a skin suit of his very own. Technically a part of the Monster Hunter International series but can be read alone.
-
1
-
-
Except that IS the basic premise of the author of the article. Moreover, the asshat in the interview feels conflicted about coming up with the justification for the family. The idea of justifying something that gives someone an advantage over others actually causes him mental conflict.
Actually, no. "Conflict" is only mentioned in the text once.
Swift in particular has been conflicted for some time over the curious situation that arises when a parent wants to do the best for her child but in the process makes the playing field for others even more lopsided.I see nothing inherently wrong in being conflicted over that. It's not the same as "being conflicted about coming up with justification for the family".
Basically you find it objectionable that people exist who dare to think about whether the way we're doing things is optimal or not, regardless of what conclusion they arrive on. Congratulations, you have (re-)invented thoughtcrime.
Yes, because despising someone because their first principles are utterly insane and that they must grasp at straws to justify a position that no rational person should have difficulty accepting in the first place is "(re)inventing thoughtcrime". There is exactly zero rational basis for accepting that familial good takes precedence over social justice if you accept equality of opportunity as a first principle as Swift and Brighouse do. Yet both of them are attempting to do so in the article, and looking at what's available on wiki they have both been doing so for the past 6 years at least. Swift himself is an authoritarian rat**** as evidenced by the last minute of that little soundclip helpfully provided by the article.
Numerous FIFA officials arrested
in Way Off-Topic
Posted
In fairness, the US would probably be doing the 2018/22 WC charges as well, but they have no jurisdiction on those.