agreed. even when i have never played any of the games since they are not available for pc (unfortunately) but as long the she has some sort of character, you can make her as crazy sexy looking as you want.
According to who, exactly? I've played GTA games, and I care about sexism.Grampy_bone said:It shows disrespect because he was judging the game by his own tastes, not his audience's. The people who play GTA don't care about sexism,
To address this, Bully Pulpit was a term coined by Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900's. In that time, the word "Bully" meant something was good. He referred to the presidency as a "Bully pulpit," and what he meant was that even though the president lacks direct legislative power they have an excellent ("bully") voice in which to preach a message or promote an agenda.erttheking said:Bully platform? You consider talking about sexism for twenty seconds to be bullying? Really? Why is it that I live in a world where expressing an opinion contrary of the mainstream is considered bullying? Showing disrespect for the medium? So is any criticism of any video game ever disrespecting the medium now? No it isn't because that argument makes no sense.
The 34 Million people who bought the game despite it's "horrible sexism," that's who.Don Incognito said:According to who, exactly? I've played GTA games, and I care about sexism.Grampy_bone said:It shows disrespect because he was judging the game by his own tastes, not his audience's. The people who play GTA don't care about sexism,
You have some evidence to prove this assertion that none of these 34,000,000 people care about sexism?Grampy_bone said:The 34 Million people who bought the game despite it's "horrible sexism," that's who.Don Incognito said:According to who, exactly? I've played GTA games, and I care about sexism.Grampy_bone said:It shows disrespect because he was judging the game by his own tastes, not his audience's. The people who play GTA don't care about sexism,
And pray tell, what is the agenda the reviewer was promoting? That GTA V had sexist elements? That's true, but aside from that what? That agenda shouldn't buy the game and couldn't enjoy it? No, she flat out said they should buy it at the end. That GTA V was a bad game? No, she still gave it a 9/10 and said it raises the bar for sandbox games. So the only agenda I can see her promoting is...sexism is bad...so what's the big deal here?Grampy_bone said:To address this, Bully Pulpit was a term coined by Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900's. In that time, the word "Bully" meant something was good. He referred to the presidency as a "Bully pulpit," and what he meant was that even though the president lacks direct legislative power they have an excellent ("bully") voice in which to preach a message or promote an agenda.erttheking said:Bully platform? You consider talking about sexism for twenty seconds to be bullying? Really? Why is it that I live in a world where expressing an opinion contrary of the mainstream is considered bullying? Showing disrespect for the medium? So is any criticism of any video game ever disrespecting the medium now? No it isn't because that argument makes no sense.
So when I say a gamespot reviewer has a "bully platform" I am not saying that they are a literal bully in the modern sense, rather that they have a strong and influential voice which will reach more people than a layperson, and with that voice comes some responsibility to their readers to be ethical and fair.
Its really quite amazing that when the audience demands that the authors of these platforms be fair they are not only told no, they will not be fair, but also that fairness is impossible. Hence, GamerGate.
People can still enjoy a game and also acknowledge the flaws it has. I do with GTA V. Same with Metro Last Light.Grampy_bone said:The 34 Million people who bought the game despite it's "horrible sexism," that's who.Don Incognito said:According to who, exactly? I've played GTA games, and I care about sexism.Grampy_bone said:It shows disrespect because he was judging the game by his own tastes, not his audience's. The people who play GTA don't care about sexism,
I work in a bar (among other jobs) and the number of threats I get is ridiculous too, I've had people threaten to literally shoot me... which would of been terrifying if they didn't respond with: "It's not a threat it's a promise." to which I responded with "It's not a promise mate... it's a cliché."Therumancer said:To put it into context, working security do you have any idea how many times people have told me they were going to do crap to my ass in retaliation? I couldn't do the job if I was going to get uptight or go crying every time I did something people didn't like.
It's like I've been saying for awhile now. "Common sense isn't."small said:the saddest part about this entire video is that something as common sense as this actually needs to be explained to people
Then ignore these people. It's one thing to be sensitive to racial issues, and by no means do they need to they need to be ignored in this day and age; I don't even find most acts of 'political correctness' off-putting. And if you're not being racist, you have no reason to be up in arms. Do not be so, if this is the case.Kohen Keesing said:You're right, there shouldn't be a need for the "I'm not racist..." portion. There shouldn't, but sadly we live in a world where the idea of 'political correctness' exists, and someone simply being a certain colour, gender orientation, or anything else, can be picked up on by certain people as being your real intention, even when it isn't. Even though you're specifying Rick, it can still be overlooked. It's the same as when phrases like "those people" or similar are somehow, I really don't understand how but somehow, are perceived as racist.
The fact is, as you said, their racial identity or whatever else SHOULD be in a vacuum - it shouldn't even be a factor at all - but some people, in their own minds as they perceive what they've heard, cannot prevent themselves from making it a factor, and impressing that factor on the original speaker.
And agree; I had the funny notion after the Bayo 2 review here that the game would age well.Phrozenflame500 said:I'm of the opinion that if Bayonetta existed in an industry that wasn't constantly mired by problems with women people would be praising it for it's expression of female sexuality.
My analogy in this case is with female pop stars. When Madonna came on the scene and practically invented the whole phenomenon people did (and still do) praise her for doing this new, bold thing that challenged previously held prudish views of women. But now that it's pretty much commonplace for pop stars to perform half naked it's become less "brave expression of power" and more "oh they're using sex to sell again".
This dissonance between the individual product and it's wider cultural context is one of the main driving forces behind the whole sexism spat. Feminist critics occasionally dismiss a product purely on cultural context and not the product itself. Conversely, the public sometimes mistake a critique of a product's context as an attack on the product itself. This inevitably leads to miscommunication and that leads to these huge dramatic messes.
erttheking said:Hey, uh, member of Jim's audience here. I KNEW he wasn't talking about me. Kindly don't claim that I'm being attacked when I know for a fact I'm not. People really need to stop freaking the Hell out and assume everything is directed at them. Did you ever perform the "I don't condone harassment but-" action? If not, he wasn't talking about you and you can relax.VanQ said:"I think Bayonetta is sexist because it has gratuitous ass and crotch shots" <- Gets across that it's opinion, won't cause any issue from me.
"Bayonetta is sexist because it has gratuitous ass and crotch shots" <- Immediately earns my ire, expressing opinion as fact.
Also, the first 50 seconds of that video was the most condescending assery I've experienced in a long time. People were dicks to you on twitter, that's awful. Don't take it out on your audience.
OT: When you get down to it, this is really just the same old people getting pissy because a game they were looking forward towards got a bad review with a new coat of paint. People just want to shut up opposing views.
I am not one of the people who did that. Regardless, he faced the camera in the opening portion of his video and made that statement. It may not have been directed at me specifically but it came across that way. And whether or not it came across that way, it was still extremely condescending to do that. I don't need a lecture on harassment and not from Jim of all people.JarinArenos said:Thank fucking god for you, Jim. This video should be required viewing for participation in any online discussion anywhere.If that statement pissed you off that much... I think a bit more introspection might be in order on exactly why you found that offensive...VanQ said:Also, the first 50 seconds of that video was the most condescending assery I've experienced in a long time. People were dicks to you on twitter, that's awful. Don't take it out on your audience.
Are you saying his review was incorrect because he used his personal taste to critique the game? You see how you are twisting the definition of "critique" to the point where it means absolutely anything, right? Neither the audience's opinion nor the Designer's intent are in any way relevant to a Critic. Its only job is to review the game-in-itself. A game is not about anything "it" wants to be (because as far as I know, a game is not a person), but rather, whatever the player sees in it. For this particular reviewer, the portrayal of women in the game was detracting from the experience and was a form of bad design that deserved mentioning. It's relevant because the player (in this case, in the form of a reviewer) says so. You can do whatever you want, take it or leave it, but pretending to reject it behind this fallacious conception of the word "ethics" makes no sense whatsoever. I can think whatever I want about Fox News, but I'd never say they lack ethics, nor would I use such a term to criticize them.Grampy_bone said:It shows disrespect because he was judging the game by his own tastes, not his audience's. The people who play GTA don't care about sexism, so chastising the game at such length was basically insulting to them. Its really odd because it shows either a lack of understanding about what the game was about or the intent to use a platform with a guaranteed audience to "score points for feminism" by blasting a popular game with baseless criticism.
It's like a person reviewing pornography making complaint after complaint about how the movies all have naked people having sex in them. Sure, this is "just their honest opinion," but it's clearly a useless and disingenuous opinion. They are claiming to have the audience's tastes in mind when in reality they are pushing their own.
And here your definitions (and very often, GamerGate's) start tangling until they make no sense whatsoever. "Agenda", "bias" and "ideology" are three different words with three specific meanings. A "bias" is a one-sided lack of concern towards different opinions. Taking ONE POINT out of a game's score because of an specific element of it that you took twenty seconds to review clearly means that the point of GTA games didn't go over his head. At best you could say someone like Anita is biased, but she talks about specific narrative tropes in video games, she doesn't review the games in a strict sense. The part that I outlined in bold hast two clauses, a) the author writes for an audience and b) therefore he must avoid biases. A) is incorrect because your causality is inverted: The author doesn't write for people, but rather people read what the author writes. This seems like semantics but it's a very simple point: a musician doesn't compose what people "want" to listen; he composes and, if he's any good, people will flock towards him. The moment he starts pandering to what the people want is what we often call "selling out". Considering the hyperbolic reaction some people have had towards feminist critique, I'd say they are quite far from appealing to any non-existant "score points for feminism". B) doesn't follow from a) in any way, even if we ignore what I've said previously. To have an Ideology and to have an Agenda are completely different things. The former is inescapable, the latter is unethical, both in the context of journalism and of art critique. The way to differentiate both is very simple: Jim Sterling has an ideology (feminist) and Anita Sarkeesian has an Agenda (Post-modern feminist cultural critique or whatever the hell one can call it). Anita doesn't review games as we've established, so she is (should be) irrelevant to GamerGate. Jim's reviews are notoriously conditioned by his being a feminist, but only in the elements where it is pertinent. In other words, if he (hypothetically) where to call Bayonetta "gross and sexist" he would do so when referring to the aesthetic, the story, or whatever, but not when referring to something like the combat mechanics. Because a story is relevant to a critique in so far as the game has one (He wouldn't criticize Mario for having a bad story, since, if I oversimplify it, for all intents and purposes Mario doesn't have a "story") it must be mentioned in the review and it must be part of the score. To not even casually adress in any way the blatant chauvinism in some parts of early GTA games is to either be biased against feminism, or to say that the it's not relevant to the enjoyment of the game, which is a subjective statement. At this point, Gamergate's nonsensical use of words like "fairness" starts crumbling and showing it's true ugly face. The face of a movement that is too scared to accept that people can enjoy things in different ways than you do, and that those critiques, which are being more and more considered by developers, will (inevitably, hopefully, logically) have an impact on the way they make their games, which will open up for different forms of games (without obviously eliminating the older ones; there's room for everyone, as they say) with different focuses and philosophies other than the gameplay obsession and idea of games as masturbatory fun that some people seem to have. A view that, in my opinion, is a lack of respect towards the ridiculous potential for awesomeness that games have.You say its all just opinions so who cares, but journalists have a specific voice and platform which makes their voice louder and more influential than others. This is what "Bully Pulpit" means. With this platform comes an implicit understanding that the author of the review is not writing for themselves but for their audience, and thus will at least attempt to avoid bias or even the appearance of it. Basically whenever someone says "hey it's just my opinion and besides being unbiased is impossible" that is just an excuse for a lack of ethics and lazy writing. The criticism of the review was the audience declaring that the author had abused their position and thus had lost the audience's trust. It's hard to trust a reviewer as a source of consumer information if you feel they are pushing a personal agenda over everything else.
The point is that it's part of the jobs we've been doing, you work as casino security, a bouncer, or whatever you either take this kind of thing and learn how to deal with it without making it into a scene (the bottom line is to keep things quiet while getting your job done, not be a tough guy) or you wind up not doing that job very long. You intentionally go to work knowing this is going to happen and cope with it, you don't cry and yell because the job your doing means your going to take abuse.Rellik San said:I work in a bar (among other jobs) and the number of threats I get is ridiculous too, I've had people threaten to literally shoot me... which would of been terrifying if they didn't respond with: "It's not a threat it's a promise." to which I responded with "It's not a promise mate... it's a cliché."Therumancer said:To put it into context, working security do you have any idea how many times people have told me they were going to do crap to my ass in retaliation? I couldn't do the job if I was going to get uptight or go crying every time I did something people didn't like.
That said, not everyone has that same fortitude for these things.
This statement is ridiculous by its very nature.DragonDai said:The first is that it is NOT okay to dock a game's Metacritic score because you personally have a moral or societal concern with a video game.