obscurumlux01 said:
Steve Butts?
I am disappoint.
Failing to mention important information such as the gross overuse of the word '*****' to refer to females is a discredit to yourself as an editor/professional and to your audience. [http://kotaku.com/5851358/batman-arkham-citys-weird-*****-fixation]
Kotaku got it right, so why the hell didn't you include this, at all? Perhaps a monetary payout or other consideration from the publisher for 'forgetting' to mention this aspect? Hmm?
What other biases or manipulation should we be made aware of? Full disclosure would be too much for any of you to handle, lol. Your lawyers would have a heart attack at the lawsuits that could be filed if it was done that way.
Please include this information, or refrain from turning the Escapist into the next IGN.
K-thx-bye.
Puh-lease. Your conspiracy is as laughable as your attempt to pass off suspicion as proof. If you have firmer ground to stand on, you should find it before you offer any more accusations.
I didn't mention the overuse of the word "*****" not because Warner paid me off in Bat-dollars, but because I think it's an inflated controversy aimed at the wrong target. If the various flame-fanners cared about confronting misogyny in the game, why are they so fixated on that one word and largely ignoring the more troubling suggestions of rape? I can understand how some gamers, and I count myself among them, are sometimes unsettled and even offended by the tone of the game, but I think that's what the writer wanted.
Obviously, other reviewers have a different opinion on this and I support them standing up for what they believe in. I'll even allow that there may be a fight worth fighting here, but it's not one I'm running from as a result of publisher pressure. Neither does my silence mean I don't hold an opinion. Writing reviews requires selection and if I wrote about every single thing I loved or hated about this game, we'd be here all day.
Yes, the use of the word "*****" makes me uncomfortable, but the greater failure is in creativity, not sensitivity. I object to the word, not simply because of the unsettling implication that murderers and psychopaths might actually be socially irresponsible, but because it's the only way the writer seems able to suggest that these are "bad" guys.
I happily anticipate your thoughtful rebuttal.