Kotaku article!

[Enoch]

To not see that the artist who drew these pictures did so lovingly and tried to bring out in each one beauty appropriate to the theme is at best ignorance, at worst a complete lack of good taste.

I'm sorry, but those portraits are terrible. Sure, there's some technical skill at play, but they are collectively beyond ridiculous in their ham-handed suggestiveness. (The open slit between the tentflaps; the catfish; the worship of the "tree" positioned at just the right angle... It all says nothing more than "I exist only for your sexual gratification!")

 

I haven't played The Witcher (its reported grind-tasticness being the main turnoff), but if that stuff is any indication, Pop's hyperbolic description is looking pretty spot-on to me.

[Pop]

I enjoy that the article bases the entire argument on the naming of one of our perks, and a few comments by a game developer. No movie critic worth his salt would write commentary based on a trailer, and no book critic would write commentary based on reading the outside jacket promotional text, but somehow this person thinks it's acceptable to form a critique based on the name of a perk.

 

If he has the same opinion after he plays through the game, that's his business, but this sort of laziness is exactly what is ridiculous about game journalism and critique currently. I think one of the greatest signs that our industry is still young and hasn't reached the depth that other mediums have reached is that the critics still pass off writing such as this as serious commentary.

While I certainly don't think that AP deserves to be singled out among all the RPGs that include so-called "romance", if you're trying to say that as far as sex is concerned AP is going to turn out radically different from the way the writer's spinning it I think you're trying to pull one over on us. I mean c'mon, we've been keeping track of the PR campaign and the promise of sex with female characters has been emphasized from the first previews.

 

And man, you're not paying attention if you've never read commentary akin to this around film and music.

 

I haven't played The Witcher (its reported grind-tasticness being the main turnoff), but if that stuff is any indication, Pop's hyperbolic description is looking pretty spot-on to me.

I really wish I was kidding when I said that every single female character in the Witcher (not counting nameless peasant women or old maids) is portrayed as a whore barely restraining herself from shagging Geralt. I wish I was kidding. But it really is that ridiculous. You can seduce dryads who have no prior conception of what sex even is.

Edited August 31, 2009 by Pop

[Joseph Bulock]

While I certainly don't think that AP deserves to be singled out among all the RPGs that include so-called "romance", if you're trying to say that as far as sex is concerned AP is going to turn out radically different from the way the writer's spinning it I think you're trying to pull one over on us. I mean c'mon, we've been keeping track of the PR campaign and the promise of sex with female characters has been emphasized from the first previews.

 

And man, you're not paying attention if you've never read commentary akin to this around film and music.

 

There is sex in the game, I will be the first to be proud of this. My point is that it is inexcusable to write anything that is expected to be taken seriously about any form of media without actually experiencing the media. AP's sex isn't juvenile, it's not just a reward for playing the game. The scenes are important milestones in the player's relationship with the characters.

 

As to the game's sex being normative, yes, our game features a heterosexual male character and a number of heterosexual females. It is also a game in the same narrative style as the bond movies or any of the big Hollywood espionage action films. Bond never gets bi-curious, and I don't remember any lesbians in the Bourne series. To be the most faithful to our source material, Mike's possible sexual encounters are all between a man and a woman. I personally can't wait to see more LGBT centered relationships in games, and hopefully ones that are done well. AP simply wasn't the game to explore these, and I'm not sure if games are really in a place where a AAA title can explore these themes honestly.

[RPGmasterBoo]

I'm sorry, but those portraits are terrible. Sure, there's some technical skill at play, but they are collectively beyond ridiculous in their ham-handed suggestiveness. (The open slit between the tentflaps; the catfish; the worship of the "tree" positioned at just the right angle... It all says nothing more than "I exist only for your sexual gratification!")

 

That is because you see it as such. The tentflaps are tentflaps, the catfish a catfish and the tree is a tree. It is your mind that is drawing these conclusions. I never even saw it that way before you pointed it out, and that is because I look at the beautiful side of it, the apparent softness of the elf's skin, the dreamy expression on the lady of the lake, and the wild natural look of the dryad. You look only at the sexual and hence you see vaginas and penises everywhere, because in essence that's all you want to see.

 

Is this also suggestive?

 

 

Sexual gratification goes both ways last time I checked BTW.

Edited August 31, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[Enoch]

Hooray for total worship of female beauty! Just like Botticelli, but with kinky elf ears, wangfish, and labia tents!

 

RPGMB's other favorite artist (Not work-safe.)

Edited September 1, 2009 by Enoch

[Hell Kitty]

a homosexual male is much less acceptable to society then a homosexual female.

 

Yes, but why do you think that is? I think you agree with me more than you disagree.

 

As you mention, the problem with the little boy is the assumption that he is either gay, or will grow up to be gay. And what is he doing by being gay? He is lowering himself to being like a woman.

 

The stereotype of gay men is that they are like women, they enjoy and take part in the kinds of things that only women are supposed to. Gay men are like women and thus less than men. When a straight man freaks out because a gay man came onto him, it's because he's scared it will cast doubt on his own sexuality. People might think he is is gay, people might think he is less than a real man, more like a woman. Homophobia is not a fear of people who are gay, it's a fear of an association with homosexuality, having your masculinity and maleness put it doubt.

 

the tree is a tree.

 

Not when it's got a pair.

 

The cards in The Witcher exist as a reminder of the women you've have sex with. Like photoshoots in mens magazines, the images exist to titillate, and it's dishonest to claim it's purely the viewers who choose to see them as sexual. They are sexual in nature, that's the point. That you also see them as beautiful is irrelevant.

[Enoch]

Not when it's got a pair.

 

I hadn't even noticed the, erm, acorns on the tree until you said that!

[Wrath of Dagon]

So Thorton is a mysoginist because he's not gay, did I get that right?

[Slowtrain]

So Thorton is a mysoginist because he's not gay, did I get that right?

 

 

No he's a misogynist because he has sex with women. In a game.

 

If he was gay he would be a misanthrope. Because he had sex with men. In a game.

 

 

edit: He also dual wields SMGs. In a game.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Slowtrain

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, now I get it, the SMG's are a phallic symbol, and he "dual wields them".

[Nepenthe]

I enjoy that the article bases the entire argument on the naming of one of our perks, and a few comments by a game developer. No movie critic worth his salt would write commentary based on a trailer, and no book critic would write commentary based on reading the outside jacket promotional text, but somehow this person thinks it's acceptable to form a critique based on the name of a perk.

 

If he has the same opinion after he plays through the game, that's his business, but this sort of laziness is exactly what is ridiculous about game journalism and critique currently. I think one of the greatest signs that our industry is still young and hasn't reached the depth that other mediums have reached is that the critics still pass off writing such as this as serious commentary.

 

I don't think it's JUST that, people with an agenda will always cherry-pick, whether from a game, a movie or a song. Games are probably the easiest targets, because to most of the classical extremist groups it will be the only major medium they have no personal experience with - and thus the one they fear the most. Another thing about people with agendas - they often try to pass themselves off as 'journalists', a title that some people take as respectable, even if there are absolutely no qualifications for it (at least around here!)

[Pop]

Can we get someone in here who can actually make an argument against the article without focusing on the character of the writer? Can we get someone in here who is actually capable of participating in a cogent debate? No?

 

If he was gay he would be a misanthrope. Because he had sex with men. In a game.

This word, it does not mean what you think it means. Actually misanthropy is "a hatred of humankind". What you're talking about is misandry, or "a hatred of males". Misogyny is actually misanthropy, unless your implication is that women aren't human beings the way men are. Perhaps it's best that I don't ask you to clarify.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Pop

[lasthearth]

Can we get someone in here who can actually make an argument against the article without focusing on the character of the writer? Can we get someone in here who is actually capable of participating in a cogent debate? No?

 

Argument against the article is not necessary. It is obvious to any one thinking about this in a clear headed way.

 

People like sex. Sex sells. So companies put sex in the product to help them sell. It's not misogyny, it's just practical. Unless the innate desire by men to have sex with women is somehow misogynistic. And if that's the case then nature is misogynous.

[Nepenthe]

Can we get someone in here who can actually make an argument against the article without focusing on the character of the writer? Can we get someone in here who is actually capable of participating in a cogent debate? No?

 

I'm talking on a general level, and not participating in any 'debate'. In fact, I don't participate in pseudointellectual 'debating' in general, and on the internet in particular.

 

[Hell Kitty]

Unless the innate desire by men to have sex with women is somehow misogynistic.

 

Did you read the article? The issue isn't the desire to have sex, and the article doesn't even use the word misogyny.

 

A man takes a woman out to dinner, he pays the bill, they go back to his place, and now he wants sex. Does she want sex? That's not important, he showed her a good time, payed for dinner, and now she must reward him with sex. The issue is that this is how sex in games is typically presented, a commodity to be traded rather than a shared experience between two people. A relationship/romance is the work you have to do rather than enjoyable on it's own. Sex is the point of the relationship, rather than just a part of it.

 

Personally I think sex and relationships in gaming is an interesting topic, but insisting that sex sells and games are just meaningless entertainment is a rather dull response to it.

[lasthearth]

Unless the innate desire by men to have sex with women is somehow misogynistic.

 

Did you read the article? The issue isn't the desire to have sex, and the article doesn't even use the word misogyny.

 

A man takes a woman out to dinner, he pays the bill, they go back to his place, and now he wants sex. Does she want sex? That's not important, he showed her a good time, payed for dinner, and now she must reward him with sex. The issue is that this is how sex in games is typically presented, a commodity to be traded rather than a shared experience between two people. A relationship/romance is the work you have to do rather than enjoyable on it's own. Sex is the point of the relationship, rather than just a part of it.

 

Personally I think sex and relationships in gaming is an interesting topic, but insisting that sex sells and games are just meaningless entertainment is a rather dull response to it.

 

Of course he wants sex, but she "must" reward him with sex? There is no "must" about it. If she wants to have sex, they will. If she doesn't, and he forces himself on her, that's rape. Is your compliant against the idea of casual sex in general?

 

So what if Alpha Protocol isn't about portraying long term romances/relationships, and is about romantic flings in the tradition of the classical James Bond genre? (I don't know that to be the case since I haven't played the game yet, and neither has the author of the article). But so what if it is true. How is this different from the way things are in every area of entertainment and culture, and why is it worth an entire article singling this one game out?

[Hell Kitty]

Of course he wants sex, but she "must" reward him with sex?

 

In a game, of course, because that's the point of the romance. Relationships are mini-games and sex is the reward for winning them. It's what the audience expects.

 

Is your compliant against the idea of casual sex in general?

 

I don't have a complaint, I didn't write the article.

 

why is it worth an entire article singling this one game out?

 

Perhaps you could read the article and find out?

 

Calax points out in the very first post that the reason Alpha Protocol is targeted is due to the "Ladies Man" achievement. Even if sex is the expected conclusion of the romance, one could argue that it's the journey rather than the destination that's important, that character interaction is the appeal of RPG romance, rather than the promise of sex. My understanding is that the author sees the inclusion of this achievement as showing that Obsidian is admitting that "no, it really is all about bangin' chicks!"

[lasthearth]

Yeah, it's really about banging chicks in a video game, just like it's really about shooting people and beating people up in a video game, what is the big freaking deal?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Again, you never know if the women in the game wanted sex too. Heck, they might be the ones coming on to Mike.

[Slowtrain]

If he was gay he would be a misanthrope. Because he had sex with men. In a game.

This word, it does not mean what you think it means. Actually misanthropy is "a hatred of humankind". What you're talking about is misandry, or "a hatred of males". Misogyny is actually misanthropy, unless your implication is that women aren't human beings the way men are. Perhaps it's best that I don't ask you to clarify.

 

 

Thank you for that clarification. Misanthropy did not seem directly analagous to misogyny and I was wondering if there was a more directly opposite term. Now I know there is. Please take my previous uses of misanthrory and substitute misandry. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

If all of this fuss is strictly due to the achievement, then it would seem a whole lot of fuss over nothing, which it already does, since there is an achievement for the opposite as well.

 

As has been previously pointed out several times.

[Gfted1]

a homosexual male is much less acceptable to society then a homosexual female.

 

Yes, but why do you think that is? I think you agree with me more than you disagree.

 

As you mention, the problem with the little boy is the assumption that he is either gay, or will grow up to be gay. And what is he doing by being gay? He is lowering himself to being like a woman.

 

The stereotype of gay men is that they are like women, they enjoy and take part in the kinds of things that only women are supposed to. Gay men are like women and thus less than men. When a straight man freaks out because a gay man came onto him, it's because he's scared it will cast doubt on his own sexuality. People might think he is is gay, people might think he is less than a real man, more like a woman. Homophobia is not a fear of people who are gay, it's a fear of an association with homosexuality, having your masculinity and maleness put it doubt.

 

 

I dont think the lack of acceptance for homosexuality is due to fears over a male lowering himself to being like a woman, but more based on the fact that its a rather large divergence from societal norms. I think anything that strays too far off the norms of the society you live in suffers the same ostricism. After all "tomboy" is not complimentary, we are not elevating the female for acting male, we are specifically point out how that female is different from the female norm.

[alanschu]

That is because you see it as such. The tentflaps are tentflaps, the catfish a catfish and the tree is a tree. It is your mind that is drawing these conclusions. I never even saw it that way before you pointed it out, and that is because I look at the beautiful side of it, the apparent softness of the elf's skin, the dreamy expression on the lady of the lake, and the wild natural look of the dryad. You look only at the sexual and hence you see vaginas and penises everywhere, because in essence that's all you want to see.

 

Sexual gratification goes both ways last time I checked BTW.

 

 

Simply because you weren't able to see them, doesn't mean they aren't there. I do find it absolutely delightful that you make a snide remark about how he only sees them because he wants to see them.

 

However, given your rather obvious love of the Witcher, I'm not at all surprised you were never able to see it. You didn't want to, because it'd taint your perspective of it.

 

 

See, it's easy to have fun like this.

[Slowtrain]

That is because you see it as such. The tentflaps are tentflaps, the catfish a catfish and the tree is a tree. It is your mind that is drawing these conclusions. I never even saw it that way before you pointed it out, and that is because I look at the beautiful side of it, the apparent softness of the elf's skin, the dreamy expression on the lady of the lake, and the wild natural look of the dryad. You look only at the sexual and hence you see vaginas and penises everywhere, because in essence that's all you want to see.

 

Sexual gratification goes both ways last time I checked BTW.

 

 

Simply because you weren't able to see them, doesn't mean they aren't there. I do find it absolutely delightful that you make a snide remark about how he only sees them because he wants to see them.

 

However, given your rather obvious love of the Witcher, I'm not at all surprised you were never able to see it. You didn't want to, because it'd taint your perspective of it.

 

 

See, it's easy to have fun like this.

 

I loved the WEitcher but never noticed any of that stuff either. Of course, tbch, I never really looked that closely at the cards. Now that Enoch and HK pointed some out it's fairly obvious.

 

 

The tree is anyway. It's pretty funny.

[alanschu]

I dont think the lack of acceptance for homosexuality is due to fears over a male lowering himself to being like a woman, but more based on the fact that its a rather large divergence from societal norms. I think anything that strays too far off the norms of the society you live in suffers the same ostricism. After all "tomboy" is not complimentary, we are not elevating the female for acting male, we are specifically point out how that female is different from the female norm.

 

 

Of course it's a divergence from societal norms. That's just a statement of the obvious though, rather than providing any sort of reason. If it wasn't a divergence from societal norms, it wouldn't be an issue at all.

 

Tomboy only applies to younger women. However, a "tomboy" is certainly more accepted than an effeminate young man. Why is that? Both are divergences from societal norms, yet one will be significantly more ostracized than the other. Why is that?

[Slowtrain]

Tomboy only applies to younger women. However, a "tomboy" is certainly more accepted than an effeminate young man. Why is that? Both are divergences from societal norms, yet one will be significantly more ostracized than the other. Why is that?

 

 

I think the amount of acceptance for either of those examples is going to vary a lot by enviornment and peer group.