I need help understanding UPDATED

[BloatedGuppy]

Yeah, but the thing is that you're free to think it's stupid(it's MGS, it's all REALLY stupid when you take the logic used into our world), but it rarely stops at that, it continues on to that "ChangeItOrElseVille" place I was talking about.

Yeah but people can make that threat. They make it all the time. The "or else" amounts to "or you'll lose my business", or "I'll shit talk your product on the internet". Which we do here. All the time.

Nobody really thinks that Kojima's gonna get a sadnessblister, just that the louder and more furious the vocal angry push back, the less likely something they REALLY want is going to get made because a chance was taken before and it was met with a wall of incoherent screaming.

The products we buy are shaped by market forces all the time. I routinely hear that the lack of female protagonists in certain genres is due to the perception that it's primarily males playing them. Fair enough, market forces at work, right? If market forces dictated or created a change inside MGS (not saying it will, or should, just speculating) would that not also be fair game?

Not to mention - I really hate going back around to this but - the majority of people that takes SERIOUS issue with her apparently have no sense of humor to be able to laugh things off and don't really appear to have a way to communicate their displeasure with something that doesn't border on something like...Scientology being criticized or made fun of.(South Park thread's gotten burned into my mind at the moment, so we'll use it) There's rarely any alternative given that isn't just some variation of 'get rid of it' or even a suggestion presented for equal representation of a male counterpart to Quiet.

I don't really concern myself with determining whether or not complaints are valid based on how easily amused I think the complainers are. If a bunch of people you believe are fussy prudes want to get upset about a titty game, that's their prerogative. Shouting at them isn't going to change their minds, and the person creating the titty game is presumably more than capable of determining for themselves what market they're looking to capture.

 

[renegade7]

The two main concerns are:

1.) It might represent an attitude among game developers that is dismissive towards women or that views gaming as a hobby that caters exclusively to men, thereby potentially creating a culture that is uninviting to women or, in the worst case, propagates such dismissive attitudes.

2.) It's cheap sex appeal when an increasing number of gamers want deeper and more carefully-crafted experiences.

I also think that the days of Leland Yee and Jack Thompson are still relatively fresh in many gamers' minds, so gaming culture has become a bit conditioned to go on the defensive when it becomes aware of criticism, and that defensiveness still needs time to wear off as gaming grows into its newfound cultural legitimacy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Did I say all of them did just that. I said people who do not everyone who does, not every criticism, just those who do.

No, you didn't. The definition of cherry picking is highlighting highly specific examples for the purpose of establishing an argument. As you used the term, I presumed you understood its definition.

Hardly a label when it's demonstrably true with some of them making the claims.

It is LITERALLY a label Kodu. Whether you feel it's applicable or not is irrelevant. One would assume you found it applicable, as you were applying it.

As far as being protected from it. I believe that they should be protected, when it gets to the level of "Do this you piece of scum or I'll fucking kill your wife and child". That's not good feedback, that's active threats.

Yes, you are correct, that's very bad. Despite being told numerous times by denizens of the Gaming Industry forum that death threats are part and parcel of life on the internet and should be taken with a grain of salt, I find them deplorable. Is this your solitary example of negative feedback? Do this or I will kill your wife and child? Can you point me to specific examples of this kind of feedback being offered up? Because the OP didn't specifically detail "Why are people threatening to kill Kojima's wife and child". That would make for a very different discussion, I think.

What I mean by shaming is suggesting they're doing real serious harm to people or are plain monsters and no-one should approach them ever.

My goodness, another EXTREMELY specific set of statements. Remember what you said before? About cherry picking? But I digress. I assume you have examples of this too?

Back to the A Clockwork Orange example claiming that Stanley Kubrick was to blame for youth violence and should be convicted as an accessory to murder due to claims his films influenced people to crime (in one case the defendant hadn't even seen the film only heard of it). People claiming he was harming society with his films and was an evil person who deserved whatever happen which as it turns out were protesters outside his house for days and death threats against his family.

Accusing someone of being an accessory to a crime is not media criticism.

Well it's pretty easy to point out how Quiet's skin breathing isn't stupid. I mean most insects do a version of just that via spiracles in their body.

Is Quiet an insect? MGS is zanier than I thought!

Is it my intention to protect them from all criticism?
No

Is it my intention to make them feel able to defend their art without fear of actual harm or serious repercussions?
Yes

So it is absolutely your intention to protect them from criticism, as long as it's criticism that YOU have deemed harmful and offensive.

If you want to call that a safe space then I guess the whole world is as we have laws meant to stop people attacking one another in the street.

You appear to be conflating negative feedback about an entertainment product with being attacked in the street. Was Kojima attacked in the street?

SUMMARY:

Just provide me with quotes of people:

1. Threatening to kill Kojima's wife and child.
2. Calling Kojima "a plain monster" and suggesting "no one should approach him ever"
3. Attacking Kojima in the street.

...and link them to his portrayal of Quiet in MGS. That shouldn't take more than a minute, those sound like some crazy high-profile statements. I stand by, waiting to be convinced! I'm receptive!

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I think we're all aware that there are legitimate criticisms of games as a medium, and illegitimate criticisms. Don't like always online? Legitimate. Don't want baby casual losers fucking up your hardcore title with "difficulty levels"? Legitimate. DLC $1 too expensive? You better believe that's legitimate.

Annoyed that the only female character in game is an ambulatory pair of tits? NOT LEGITIMATE. Annoyed that the protagonist is another grizzled, thirty something, brown-haired McGruff? NOT LEGITIMATE. Sad that the plot is stupid? MAYBE LEGITIMATE MAYBE NOT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ASK IT IS COMPLICATED OK?

Snark aside, I'd say it's significantly more simple than that.

There's a significant difference between saying "I didn't like the UI in this game", "I found the game repetitive", "the writing was bad", and saying "I don't like the way the female characters are dressed in this game...and therefore the game is contributing to women being sexually harassed and possibly assaulted", "I don't like the depiction of Middle Eastern characters in this game...and therefore it's contributing to racial profiling and Islamophobia".

See the difference? And before you claim that 'no one ever says that', feel free to browse these forums (hell, even just this thread) and you'll find more than enough of it.

One criticism is simply claiming that something in the game is bad. The other is claiming that something in the game is bad...and it's actually contributing to bad things happening in real life. Therefore, it no longer becomes a simple matter of "I like Quiet's outfit" vs. "I don't like Quiet's" outfit, it becomes "you're contributing to something bad" vs. "I'm not". To no one's surprise, people don't like being told they are somehow contributing to something bad, especially with a distinct lack of evidence.

 

[JimB]

I'd like you to say hi to romance novels.

I don't care about romance novels and never said I do, so thank you for meeting my expectations when I said people are going to miss the point.

Yes this is sexualisation, no it's not something you can brush off as idealization as it's actually part of culture thanks to the swords and sandals films.

Not an argument I've made, so please quit strawmanning me.

That's literally the only reason it gets brushed off because no one is yelling about how bad it makes them feel.

Yes. I do not care to rail against a problem the ostensible victims of don't care about. If you know someone whose feelings are actually hurt by that collage you posted, then feel free to represent that man's interests as best you can. I'm not interested in inventing one for the sake of a dogmatic point.

See now, that's an actual argument forming there.

As I said in the very beginning of my post, The_Kodu, I am talking only about my experiences, intended to directly answer the question of why people are pissed off. There are no arguments in my post, and if there were, I frankly would not want or require your condescending approval.

My ex was the big MGS fan in her words.

I don't care about your ex. I've never met her and I'm not some ideologue who thinks women are a homogeneous mass I can represent as a whole when complaining that Quiet looks dumb. As I said, I care about my friends.

Or they are acknowledging you experienced them but pointing out the issue is with the person not the media in question in some cases.

I file that under dismissal, based largely on the seeming implication that if your ex likes Metal Gear, so should every other woman, as if all their tastes and standards are required to be uniform.

You mean like suggesting if people have a problem with media maybe they're not the ones it's meant for and maybe just maybe the issue is with them and the media shouldn't change merely because someone feels intimidated by a character's looks?

No. I mean what I said, not whatever unrelated statement you are trying to mutate it into meaning. Please stop strawmanning me.

Except you know watching people attempt to transform pieces of media into something they never were nor is it the reason people got into them.

I actually have no idea what this sentence is intended to mean. Was there more to it, or are you literally just telling me I have acquaintances who do that?

Now they're complaining that in a game about an elite Superhero fighting team there's no fat girl and that two of the girls' asses look too sexy.

I don't know who "they" are or what game you're talking about, nor do I care, so I won't be drawn into the position of defending a stance I never took against a game I don't know. Please stop strawmanning me.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yes generally out of any kind of context or removing important context. What context did I remove when I pointed out some people do showcase hugely uninformed opinions and then act shocked their opinnion isn't being treated as a great highly valid thing?

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, you've got a bit of word salad going on.

Cherry picking is isolating specific examples in order to try and define a trend using only those specific examples. In your case, you highlight EXTREMELY specific instances of behavior...specifically death threats and/or physical violence...because you're attempting to make an emotional plea as to why people you dislike are scary and bad and why we should hate and fear them. You veer between this and making grotesquely broad generalizations, such as the ones in your original post in this thread.

Except with some people they don't.

Once again, Kodu, you are shifting the goalposts. You decried the use of labels, whilst freely applying them on a multitude of occasions throughout this thread. Your attitude towards labeling appears to be somewhat inconsistent, best described as "It's acceptable when I do it".

Take for example a fairly recent case in the UK where an MP was accused of rape and lost his job over it. He was cleared and it was shown to have been a vindictive effort against him by someone who had already tried to make allegations against other people in a similar manner. It's an attempt at causing actual damage to a reputation on false grounds.

What do false accusations of rape have to do with the topic of media criticism? What does the situation you've outlined here have to do with media criticism at all? It's completely off topic. I realize you're on a crusade here, but please do try and stay on topic.

Can I point to it with Kojima specifically? No

Is the topic of the thread not Kojima and criticism of Quiet?

Is it about Joss Whedon now? I don't see anyone threatening to kill his wife and children, and I don't recall any stories about Joss Whedon being attacked in the street. I do see four threats of violence against Whedon in your footnotes which is disgusting of course, but do you have more than four instances? Or are you specifically upset at those four people?

And yet certain people seem fine suggesting people help promote rape culture (such as Anita Sarkeesian)

Suggesting someone is perpetuating rape culture is also not a crime.

Wells she's genetically modified so it's entirely possible she's part bug.

Good lord this game gets stupider all the time. Can anyone weigh in on this? I've considered getting it when the price comes down, but if it's this fucking ridiculous I'm not sure I'll bother. Is Quiet a bug person?

Well considering you re-defined my claims of wishing to commit physical violence as threats then technically by your standards it would be a no as it's not classed as criticism anymore.

No, threatening someone with violence is not criticism, Kodu. "I will kill you" is not criticism. It's a threat. "Your shirt is ugly" is a criticism. "Your game sucks" is criticism. "I am going to smash your head"...not criticism.

So basically, you're anti threat, but pro-criticism? So hypothetically someone could babble about the game being sexist, racist, rape culture perpetuating, etc, etc, etc, and you'd be perfectly fine with it? Is that correct? I'm very unclear on your stance here, you're going back and forth a lot.

Welcome to what happens with vilification. It makes people feel validated in any action to stop the monster.

You mean, like calling people "clueless idiots"? That's vilification. How about this gem?

If it's a guy they're trying to get laid but pandering to or being seen to agree with. OR they're actually scared of people coming after them.

Or this?

Oh and yes there really are some people acting like Sociopaths and trying to get laid by pretending to be oh so good and progressive.

Last I checked "Sociopath" is vilification. Puritan, Miss Havisham, "legbearded hambeast"...you're just throwing around pejoratives left and right. I guess you feel validated in doing that, though. As we discussed...it's acceptable when you do it.

Ok then I'll just need

1. Access to his twitter account to check the notification tweets
2. Access to his Konami and other professional email accounts
3. His post for the last I dunno 18 months maybe

Even without that there's a few bits

So...three people calling him a misogynist, and zero people threatening to kill his wife and children, zero people calling him a plain monster, zero people attacking him on the street. You made all of that up. And in a discussion on whether or not consumers should be allowed to criticize the products they consume, you're beating the "death threat" drum as hard as you can, and throwing in false allegations of criminal activity to boot.

Well that's good. We agree! All criticism is fair game, and death threats and false allegations of criminal activity are bad. Good talk!

 

[I can't enter my old name]

I have female friends; women whose feelings matter to me. Several of them are willing to tell me that a lot of the media I enjoy--mostly comic books, but video games as well--make them uncomfortable; that they are trying to live in a world that prizes them for their attractiveness to men, for their responses to men, for their relationships to men, and that the media I enjoy heighten this to shocking levels (well hello there, Vampirella, how are you tonight, dear?). This is probably not something I ever would have noticed, had it not been explicitly spelled out for me, because I am sure deeply accustomed to having my every base whim catered to that it didn't occur to me how much the one woman in any piece of fiction is always hot, very rarely complex enough to cause me to have to think about her, and always pliable to her man's needs. This is the only woman that exists in a lot of fiction, and it's heightened in formats like comic books and video games to a degree I would find hilarious if not for the deep regret that I can't share with my female friends the things I've found in those media, because they can't perceive it as I do. They can't have the same experience I do. Everything about the format is designed to make them understand their place in these worlds is one they don't want.
---
What makes me angry is how many people miss the point, and how they miss this point so hard I have to suspect it's intentional. There are three general responses: The first is to refuse to accept that criticism of a game is different from a personal attack on the person who enjoys the game; the second is to call me (and in this instance, since I've invoked my lady friends, them as well) for holding philosophies of Puritanical censorship we never once claimed or implied claiming; the third is to scoff and say that none of the things I perceive and experience are real because my opponent has not perceived or experienced them, the implication presumably being that all of human possibility resides within the life he's lived.

I'm not entirely sure if I understand. When you say your friends felt uncomfortable, were they emotionally hurt or were they just disgusted by it? I can understand that one could despair not being able to meet expectations. Did they tell you that it bothered them so much they did not want to see it? Or were they critical of it, saying it was a negative influence to themselves and other women. I can understand being critical of sexualization, but I can't understand it like the way you are describing. Were they actually hurt by the prevalence of risque women, like it needs to be hidden away. Do they want to read comic books and play video games but can't because of the sexualization?

Instead of playing MGSV with your friends, why not play something that appeals to both men and women, like Portal. If you want to play MGSV and Quiet is a point of contention, you can not use her as a companion. If they are like, "i'm not playing anything like that", try to argue the merits such as themes of imperialization, moral ambiguity, consequentialism, and tell them of the Boss, themes of motherhood, betrayal, and loyalty in MGS3. The series isn't a cesspit of lascivity.

Western culture isn't without it's faults, but we shouldn't avoid consuming media just because of some knee-jerk reaction towards somethings we don't like and find uncomfortable. You are of course free to criticize it however you would.

 

[JimB]

When you say your friends felt uncomfortable, were they emotionally hurt or were they just disgusted by it? I can understand that one could despair not being able to meet expectations. Did they tell you that it bothered them so much they did not want to see it? Or were they critical of it, saying it was a negative influence to themselves and other women. I can understand being critical of sexualization, but I can't understand it like the way you are describing.

I'm trying to remember the specific wording. I know the metaphor chosen was paper cuts; a slightly painful wound, easily tolerated, on its own not even worth commenting on...except it's never on its own. One from Metal Gear, one from Soul Calibur, one from this, one from that, one from the other. It piles up.

Do they want to read comic books and play video games but can't because of the sexualization?

They can. They choose not to, because of the paper cuts.

Instead of playing MGSV with your friends, why not play something that appeals to both men and women, like Portal.

Because it's not about that. It's about the message that Metal Gear doesn't want women here; their money is welcome but their custom isn't. It's about being told their sex is a reason to exclude them from the table.

(Not that I've played a Solid game since the second one; I learned my lesson, thank you. I'm just running with the example given.)

 

[CaitSeith]

Isn't it weird that when someone makes an "I want to understand" post, more often than not, it ends up being a rant or frustration outlet? It kinda undermines the intention of understanding when the OP details his point of view and omits or dismisses the ones he is trying to understand.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Wells she's genetically modified so it's entirely possible she's part bug.

Good lord this game gets stupider all the time. Can anyone weigh in on this? I've considered getting it when the price comes down, but if it's this fucking ridiculous I'm not sure I'll bother. Is Quiet a bug person?

Nope. She was burned in a fire, and she had parasites slathered all over her to save her life. These parasites healed her and give her super-powers (speed, invisibility, dexterity, wolverine-healing, really good aiming), but now she has to eat (she sunbathes with her top off), drink (she showers a lot), and breath through her skin. This doesn't really explain why she wears nothing, as the other characters in the series who had the same treatment got to wear actual clothes, though...

 

[StreamerDarkly]

Imagine you're a barista who slings lattes for a living. One day, a group of people gathers outside your shop holding up signs and shouting about how your lattes are terrible and need to be made differently. You think "damn, I put a lot of effort into my frothy beverages, how could I have alienated so many customers ...", but on closer inspection you realize they're all strangers who've never spent a dime in your shop before. You try to shrug it off, but they show up day after day yelling about what a rotten person you are for not making lattes with the approved ingredients. They're even posting nasty articles online, review bombing you on YELP and petitioning the mayor to revoke your business permit.

Worried about the damage to your reputation and tired of being harassed, you decide to engage with them to see if you can address their grievances. It turns out you've been using 2% milk in your lattes whereas 3.25% is the lowest fat content allowed. They say you're contributing to an epidemic called "fat shaming" by keeping your customers unnaturally skinny, and that the world would be a much more accepting place if everyone was fat. They accuse you of doing great harm to society by "normalizing" an average female body weight of 50 kg, which is an unrealistic standard for women to live up to.

When you point out that the shop down the street uses 3.25% milk and they could just go there for their preferred frothy beverage, you're told that you're an oppressor who's blind to your own skinny privilege, and you just don't understand the damage being caused to the feelings of marginalized overweight people. You must cease your evil 2% ways or the protests will continue.

SJWs would have you believe that the situation described above is perfectly natural. While you might be free to choose the fat content of your milk, it's a choice that isn't free of consequences. After all, it's up to YOU think about what you've done wrong and decide whether to change your ways. Hopefully you choose to be a morally superior barista.

 

[dyre]

I don't really care much about the feminist aspect of it, but Quiet is downright ridiculous. It's like, I'm trying to play a serious military RPGFPS, and then some naked chick just pops in and wrecks the immersion. It's like the developer is trying to say, "I bet you're a horny teenager, right? Right? Here's some naked chicks, that'll make you happy, right??!" It just gets tiring. And it reeks of trying too hard.

Funny thing is, as a straight male, I like having attractive females in my video games. But dressing like a stripper and having no personality whatsoever...that's the lowest, most primitive form of attraction. It's like, what you cared about in women when you were a teenager, before you grew up and realized that women with actual interests and intelligent opinions and sophistication provide a vastly superior experience. I (my character) can't even have a fucking conversation with Quiet. The dog was more interesting than her. Give me Elizabeth from Bioshock or Tali from Mass Effect any day of the week.

Which Metal Gear Solid is this?

Is this the same one with the psychic guy who controls fire, a giant whale made of fire, a guy with a bionic arm which can get the ability to shoot lightening and a ride able assault robot? Part of the same series that has had a as characters a guy who is over 100 and the worlds best sniper whose Gillie suit can photosynthesize, giant mech fights, a guy who can run on water, clone soliders. Bioweapons that target only specific peoples DNA sequences and can be produced inside human bodies oh and a series that had a cyborg slicing or robot tanks that went moo ?

I think you're conflating realism with immersion. I'm trying to get into character, being this elite soldier infiltrating a Soviet fortress in Afghanistan, and then all of a sudden my stealth video game turns into a weird porn flick. Don't get me wrong - I love porn. I just don't want it in my stealth video game. [footnote]at least, not unless it comes in the form of R&R back at motherbase[/footnote]

She's such a wasted character imo. Has about as much personality as generic motherbase soldier #278. Couldn't she have learned another language? The other troops at motherbase are picking up languages like crazy. She could at least write on a piece of paper, ffs.

And believe me, some of the other stuff had me rolling my eyes as well. I'm still not sure what was up with that flaming whale. Did it have a lust for revenge as well?? Though I'm not sure what you have against some of your points, like rideable assault robots, clone soldiers, or bioweapons that target DNA. That's all consistent with the tone and mood of the game.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

So BloatedGuppy it seems to me you didn't quite grasp some of the nuances of my argument hence why you've presented this straw man version. Oh and kindly don't suggest I'm arguing some "fundamentalist ideology" that's cause an "intellectually deadening" in me you'll find I'm rather far from being a religious absolutist who denies all evidence presented to the counter of points I raised. I note you're rather low on the evidence side though maybe start with showing where I claimed Hideo Kojima's wife and child were threatened before you claimed that was my argument?

From:

I believe that they should be protected, when it gets to the level of "Do this you piece of scum or I'll fucking kill your wife and child". That's not good feedback, that's active threats.

To:

Ok then I'll just need

1. Access to his twitter account to check the notification tweets

To:

I note you're rather low on the evidence side though maybe start with showing where I claimed Hideo Kojima's wife and child were threatened before you claimed that was my argument?

As an individual fond of "establishing context", it can be noted we were talking about Quiet/Kojima the entire time, a fact I repeatedly brought your attention to. Either you were claiming Kojima's wife and child were threatened, or you were just making up random examples of what the terrorists in your imagination sound like.

Secondly:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles

Not all fundamentalists are religious. If your doctrine brooks no dispute, and you present yourself as an unimpeachable authority who can condemn, make hostile generalizations, and promote or silence speech at will, then you are presenting as fundamentalist in your beliefs. Synonyms would include "ideologue" or "dogmatic". I have no idea if you, personally, are fundamentalist. I don't know you. This is simply how you've come to express yourself in this thread. It's how a great many people who argue from this specific perspective tend to present themselves. Always I'm told of a terrifying other I should fear and despise. Always I'm told why their brand of censorship is admirable and justifiable. They fling pejoratives like confetti, while insisting they are a defamed and oppressed group. And ironically, they see all these qualities in the people they ostensibly despite, whilst recognizing none of it in themselves.

So yeah, I find that to be a pretty alarming precedent. Believe me when I say the "nuances" in your posts are not being lost.

Going to bed.

 

[EMWISE94]

*sigh* another thread about someone trying to figure out why the constant sexual portrayal of women is media is bad and it dissolves into chaos.

to the OP, if you REALLY wanna know why some people are making a fuss about a sexy female character in a piece of media, I'd suggest you read up some articles about why sexual objectification of women in the media has negative repercussions on society. You're gonna have to read up a lot though, but seeing as you've claimed you've read enough posts in this thread to draw a conclusion then I guess you wont have to do any further reading.

Personally what's always been on my mind is why those in the camp that are SO against these types of issues being brought up, who always claim to have a stance of 'not caring' or claim that people are making 'a big deal out of nothing', are so quick to be at the forefront of these arguments, shutting down any possible means of a possibly rational debate happening. Okay for the latter reason I could see why some people would jump in, sometimes when something small is blown way out of proportion some damage control would be needed as not to panic/rile up the masses (kinda like how like that whole Orphan Works Bill was being spread like the coming of a new plague when there was non to be seen).

I'm not gonna get myself caught up in this much, mostly cause I'm terrible at debating and I fear I wouldn't be able to put my points through clear enough to possibly convince an opposing party on the faults in their stance, I'll just say this again: To the OP, if you really wanna know why people would be making a fuss out of a female characters design in a video game or whatever, go read up some articles on the topic of objectification of women in media, and like I said before, you're gonna have to do a lot of reading.

 

[Zhukov]

Can't speak for anyone else, but my motives in this whole debate are entirely selfish.

- I like character designs that lean toward the practical and grounded.

- I like variety in my characters. Including gender variety.

I would like to see more of those things and games, especially games of the scale and genres that I enjoy, have historically been kinda shit at providing it.

But I think it's slowly getting better over time. So yay.

I personally don't make arguments about character portrayals affecting the treatment of or attitudes towards people in real life. I don't know if it's true or not and even if I did it would be damned hard to substantiate.

 

[JimB]

I'm opening your eyes and telling you why you should totally be feeling as hurt by it as you claim to feel hurt by female representation after someone pointed it out to you.

No, you're not. You do not actually give a single shit about romance novels, The_Kodu; if you did, you wouldn't be waiting until a discussion about representations of women to bring it up, nor would you be treating the topic like one I'm obligated to care about at the expense of caring about the representation of women. You'd also actually point out what's so awful about men in romance novels being portrayed as physically attractive, physically powerful, emotionally sensitive, and competent providers. If I had to guess based on the way you approach the topic, I'd say what you actually care about is silencing people who disagree with your viewpoint by trying to shame them with accusations of hypocrisy, accusing them of betraying principles we never held to.

I'm pointing out evidence to support the exact idea that I and others in this thread have presented that it's more that small issue is the excuse for not wanting to play rather than saying they just don't like those kind of games.

That argument only holds water if my friends are required to hold the same standards as your ex. If they are their own individuals with their own tastes and their own wherewithal, then saying, "Some person you've never met is cool with this, so the problem is definitely with you" is crap.

Again, not straw manning you but trying t ascertain your exact position argument wise by presenting what I saw as your argument and asking if it was right.

No, a question intended to gain information is like the one I asked you, where I told you I was confused by your meaning and asked you if either of the interpretations I could come up with were true. Yours is an attempt reframe my words. Knock it off.

It's blaming the media for you not liking it.

Yes. So what? Why are people not allowed to have standards the violation of which are deal-breakers?

 

[SquallTheBlade]

I'm trying to remember the specific wording. I know the metaphor chosen was paper cuts; a slightly painful wound, easily tolerated, on its own not even worth commenting on...except it's never on its own. One from Metal Gear, one from Soul Calibur, one from this, one from that, one from the other. It piles up.

Continuing your paper cuts example. Why do they pick up the "book" to get those paper cuts? Why not just... NOT? I mean, I don't like gore at all and watching Saw films make me sick. So what do I do? I simply don't watch them.

They can. They choose not to, because of the paper cuts.

Good, they are actually avoiding things they don't like.

Because it's not about that. It's about the message that Metal Gear doesn't want women here; their money is welcome but their custom isn't. It's about being told their sex is a reason to exclude them from the table.

Where does Metal Gear say that? And even if it does, why does it matter? Simply don't consume that media if it makes you feel ill.


And one more thing. I don't think fictional characters represent anyone other than themselves. A fictional bulky guy doesn't represent me. And fictional women don't represent the female friends I have. I don't mix fiction and reality because yes, that could cause some problems. Fantasy is fantasy and it should stay like that.

 

[runic knight]

I'm trying to remember the specific wording. I know the metaphor chosen was paper cuts; a slightly painful wound, easily tolerated, on its own not even worth commenting on...except it's never on its own. One from Metal Gear, one from Soul Calibur, one from this, one from that, one from the other. It piles up.

Continuing your paper cuts example. Why do they pick up the "book" to get those paper cuts? Why not just... NOT? I mean, I don't like gore at all and watching Saw films make me sick. So what do I do? I simply don't watch them.

I assume the idea is that they are somehow unable to since the media offers fewer choices of what they want, and thus they must either suffer the papercuts, or do without.

This is unfortunately forgetting that everything comes with "cuts" when it comes to the media and everyone gives a little on what they want as the perfect product to instead accept a good one. The issue here is that things such as protagonists traits are being inflated in importance for some reason I don't quite follow, making the issue of 'I don't really like this trait, I wish it was a different one" somehow akin to causing physical pain.

 

[1981]

Adverts are a deliberately manipulative type of media different to entertainment media. The most powerful kind is adverts that are pretending not to be for example product placement etc.

So placing a product in e.g a movie is the most powerful form of advertising? That just proves my point.

It's already been said, but the reason people have a problem with Quiet and other conspicuously placed products [footnote]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjB6r-HDDI0[/footnote] is that they're not an organic part of the fictional universe.

Spoiler

I'm not joking when I say I was going to compare MGS to Twilight. But you beat me to it.

 

[JimB]

Okay, this website keeps crashing my computer, so quick and dirty:

Are you suggesting me presenting counterarguments that are somewhat watertight is unfair as it means people can't argue back and maybe it shows the holes in their argument?

I am suggesting nothing. I am explicitly saying you are repeatedly (and, I suspect, deliberately) missing my point, that you are putting words in my mouth, and that I do not believe you actually care about the portrayal of men in fiction since you only seem to bring it up when you feel threatened that someone might be paying attention to women; and in light of what seems to be a continuing pattern of this, I can't actually think of anything I have to gain by continuing to engage you.

Good, they are actually avoiding things they don't like.

I will pass along to my female friends that someone they've never met and who doesn't care about their interests approves of their tactics. I am sure their joy will be appropriate.

I don't think fictional characters represent anyone other than themselves. A fictional bulky guy doesn't represent me. And fictional women don't represent the female friends I have. I don't mix fiction and reality because yes, that could cause some problems. Fantasy is fantasy and it should stay like that.

I think you're looking at it from the wrong angle. Fictional characters can't represent themselves, because they have no selves to represent on account of being fictional. The only thing they can represent is their creator and the creator's worldview. Have you ever heard the saying, "Every painting is a self-portrait?" It refers to that idea. When one of two female characters in a huge game is a near-mute who dresses like a strung-out stripper and poses endlessly at the camera for you, and the other is a child (yeah, she's supposed to be in her twenties, but fuck off, that is a child's school uniform) who is tortured and killed for the sake of motivating you, Hideo Kojima is making a pretty ugly blanket statement about the role women play in his world. Those are the two women, the victim and the girlfriend, and he doesn't need to know my friends for the statement to be about them because Quiet isn't a bullet to aim at an individual. She's a glimpse into the world as Hideo Kojima perceives it.