Trailers: Hitman: Absolution - Saints Trailer

[ElPatron]

While partly true, the ones that still wear the more traditional style habit (aka, what this trailer shows) tend to be located in more isolated locations that rarely, if ever, interact with the outside world.

I think it depends a lot on the church and not on location in many places. I live in the city and you see both attires, and we are hardly isolated.

And this is why video gaming will never be taken seriously.

>implying we are insecure to the point we need people to take our hobbies seriously
>implying that the Hitman trailer isn't a lot more serious than 70% of the videogames released

I hope you were using that sentence in a sarcastic way or that I took it out of context, because it really rustled my jimmies.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

Just to throw this out there: those nuns are about as good at blending in with actual nuns as Altair was at blending in with actual monks in the first Assassin's Creed.

Why is this a betrayal? Oh my poor ignorant fools, I shall tell you why.

And then I'll play Devil's Advocate as best I can.

This is NOT what Hitman is about. The Hitman games have always been about cold, calculated kills there is none of this Die Hard style shoot-'em-up, outdated 80's movie bullshit in the games. The game actively penalized you if you so much as thought about taking out an M16. Sure, it gave you the option but if you have to use a gun AT ALL then you're clearly not smart enough to play the game as it's meant to be played.

See, that's the thing: if you truly aren't capable of playing the game "as it's meant to be played," you probably won't be able to play it well enough to progress. The fact that weapons that aren't subtle were given as an option is a testament to the developers knowing that, yes, sometimes things go tits-up and you need to shoot your way out. And do you know why they gave us that option?

Know what? I'll answer that in a bit. Still plenty of post to go.

Hitman is about patience and studying your target, it's about planning your actions and forming a strategy in order to take out the mark without anyone even knowing what happened or even think that it was because someone actually did it. Y'know, like a real professional killer and not some dime-a-dozen murderer.

And you say this with the authority of...who, now? Because it sounds like you're citing some sort of hitman census that I'm fairly confident doesn't exist.

What separates a "real professional killer" from your derided "dime-a-dozen murderer"? Because if you go the latter route, you end up killing dozens of bodyguards, soldiers, etc along the way. Isn't that just a different sort of skill-set? Being able to shoot your way through a small army while not exactly being a god of war yourself is pretty damn impressive for a human being.

Every mission in the series was set up so you can make every death look like an accident so nobody would even suspect that you were ever there. It is entirely possible (and advised) to go into every mission with nothing more than the syringes, the fiber wire and a couple of bombs, that's literally all you need.

Anyone who's played the previous games knows that it's about stealth first and that includes how you take out your targets, it's more a puzzle game than an action game because you're supposed to look at what's in the environment and then figure out how you can use it. Like when you swapped the fake gun for a real one to take out an overacting stage performer before detonating a bomb to drop a chandelier onto his lover's head as he rushes out to see what's wrong with his boyfriend. The whole thing will look like an accident.

Okay, I'm going to ask you two very simple questions, one of which is fairly contingent on the first:

Have you ever reloaded a mission while playing a Hitman game? And if so, was it because you were spotted/got into a gunfight and you wanted to do things the 'proper' way?

They don't show you the newspapers for no reason, it's to show you if anyone is onto you and how long it'll be before they come to catch you, if you did everything correctly and made it look like an accident then you wouldn't even be mentioned in the papers, it would just be another "tragic accident". That's what a professional killer does, THAT'S WHY YOU GET PAID FOR THIS SHIT, because there's absolutely no way it's going to get linked back to your client if nobody suspects murder, is there?

Then why do so many of your clients not care about how you dispatch the person? The father grieving his dead son wasn't thinking "How will I get away with this?" when he told you to show the carnival organizer a picture of his son before you iced him.

Also this Batman vision bullshit, what is this? Why is it here? What happened to my map? Why are the patrol paths of every NPC mapped out like a fucking paint-by-numbers colouring book? How does that even fucking work? Do you know how absolutely offensive that is? This is two great big middle fingers right up the ass to every player who felt the rush of sneaking up behind a bodyguard or target that you need out of the way. Everyone of us who slowly crept up behind them with the fiber wire at the ready chanting "please don't turn around, please don't turn around" over and over in our heads and adding a massive amount of tension to the missions.

Every play 'Far Cry: Instincts'? It's not a spoiler to say that later in the game, you get what I'll summarize as 'predator' abilities. You can see much better in the dark, for one thing, but what I found far more interesting was the ability to track enemies by their scent.

How would you pull off something like that in a video game? As it turns out, it manifested as a colored cloud that followed the trail of NPCs, growing weaker with time. It was clever and effective, and it managed to solve a problem I thought couldn't be easily solved.

Now look at Absolution's vision-mode. Do you really think that Agent 47 (the character, not you) was thinking "please don't turn around, please don't turn around" when he was sneaking up on people? Hell no. You said it yourself: he was a professional killer. And no matter how well you did in the missions in, say, Blood Money, he is a far better hitman in-canon than you can ever hope to simulate in-game.

Let's say you hear footsteps or conversation in the next room. Can you guess where the people are based on those noises alone? Can you recognize, swiftly and on-the-fly, the projected patrol route for a security guard? Can you think of reasonable ways to manifest these sorts of abilities in a video game to make them relevant to gameplay and accessible to the player? Frankly, I can't, or I can't come up with a way that's dramatically better than what's being implemented now. I hope to God that you've not been implying that Agent 47 is actually seeing things the way we are when it comes to that alt-vision mode.

Now what have we got? We've got a diluted version where we don't even have to make any effort to take someone out, which also means that it's actually ENCOURAGED that you take out innocent people with nothing to do with the intended target. In the old games you didn't do this because you wanted to, it was a last resort, if you could you'd avoid it as much as possible. In this version you're pretty much told to strangle any fucker just because they're there.

Erm...why? Why is it more encouraged to kill people now? If anything, I imagine AIs will be better at finding out if people have gone missing (recognizing unfamiliar faces, checking in via radio, etc), so it's only the "dime-a-dozen murderer" types you've been railing on that would think "Oh, I'm better at killing now. I better make the most of it by killing as many people as possible and risking a SWAT team getting shoved up my ass."

In the old games it's a bad thing to take out non-essential people because not only are they just the average working Joe Nobody who you've not been hired to take out, but more importantly: they're also a liability.

Every body you stash in a dumpster or laundry chute is another piece of evidence that's going to harm your ability to do your job professionally, which as I've said, means that nobody suspects foul play. Who the hell's going to not think that the target was murdered when they find the chef's body crumpled up in the laundry room like an old sock? That not only makes you a bad Hitman and no better than a petty thug, it also means that your client will be under suspicion.

...what? How is this relevant? Again, if someone is using their newfound ability to throw caution to the wind and murder everything with a pulse, then they're shit hitmen with or without that vision mode. They're the same people who would stumble across someone with an assault rifle, kill them, then just prance through the mission like it's suddenly become Brute Force.

I don't care if everyone in the entire building is a Nazi, I'm not going to kill any one of them unless I seriously have to and if I do, I will have to restart the mission to try and get a perfect run.

Called it.

It was exciting to sneak up behind someone and Garrote them, I agree, but it's also completely wrong and even though a "Game Over" screen isn't flashing up on the screen you can still be damn sure that the moment you've got to take out a non-essential target then you've failed the mission.

Remember that question I asked at the start of the post? About why the developers gave us the option to shoot our way out of a botched mission? Well, I'm going to give you that answer know:

Because they think that people like you are dead wrong.

If they wanted to, they could've made every non-essential kill (or even a certain number of non-essential kills) an instant 'Game Over.' But they didn't. And they didn't do that because they wanted to make the game as close to realistic as they could.

You know what the most ironic thing is? For all your bluster about capturing the true spirit of a "professional killer," those "dime-a-dozen murderers" are infinitely superior to you for the simple reason that they fulfilled the mission and you did not. What's that? You did it perfectly on your third playthrough? Well, tough shit. As far as I'm concerned, the 47 you played threw up his hands and left during his first mission, never to return again because he couldn't live with the guilt of having garroted someone he wasn't being specifically paid to garrote.

Did you honestly think that the developer of any game wants their players to savescum?

I'm not getting paid to kill the underlings and by-standers, I'm being paid to kill the mark, everything else is murder, the mark's just business.

*facepalm*

No, no it's not. Just because you accept money for your murders doesn't make it any less of a murder. I'll grant you that you can have gratuitous murders in the process, but don't pretend that a hitman is anything more than a professional murderer.

So, yeah, this is a massive slap in the face for any fan of the original games. It's a complete betrayal of everything established beforehand and it's a massive dumbing down of what once was a very intelligent series of games.

Oh, please. This was a prerendered cutscene depicting a random (if stupid) encounter. We've already seen gameplay, and it's about as far from this as you can imagine.

Besides, look at the details of it, past the fishnets and fetish-habits. Agent 47's initial kills are his normal methods of killing, and they work really damn well. It's only when he gets into a 'traditional' fight that he starts taking hits.

And you know what? That comforts me. Because it depicts Agent 47 as I've known him to be: an unmatched silent killer, and a skilled straight-up fighter when things go wrong. And if you're trying to actually get the Hitman experience, things will go wrong. You can't metagame and then expect that to be the baseline experience for everyone who played the game 'properly.' If things go wrong, then man the hell up and deal with it. Do you think Agent 47 has a magical 'reset universe' button he can hit whenever things aren't going perfectly? You can still get a decent rating if you end up shooting your way out, and that's pretty impressive in itself.

Yes, it'd be great if we could play instinctively as a flawless hitman who can engineer accidents like clockwork and escape without so much of a trace of foul play. But that's a perfect world, and perfect worlds are boring. I actually see the appeal in a hitman who does as well as he can for as long as he can with the previously mentioned conditions, but when shit hits the fan, he not only escapes, but he does it so well and so cleanly that forensic teams are looking at a dozen armed corpses killed with deadly-accurate small arms fire, and all their shots failing to so much as leave a trace of blood from the mysterious target they were shooting at.

No trace of foul play is all well and good, but I like to think that Agent 47 isn't some crybaby that can't handle himself in a straight fight against a dozen hired guns, and the devs gave the option to show that.

 

[geizr]

While partly true, the ones that still wear the more traditional style habit (aka, what this trailer shows) tend to be located in more isolated locations that rarely, if ever, interact with the outside world.

I think it depends a lot on the church and not on location in many places. I live in the city and you see both attires, and we are hardly isolated.

And this is why video gaming will never be taken seriously.

>implying we are insecure to the point we need people to take our hobbies seriously
>implying that the Hitman trailer isn't a lot more serious than 70% of the videogames released

I hope you were using that sentence in a sarcastic way or that I took it out of context, because it really rustled my jimmies.

You took my statement out of context.

 

[ElPatron]

You took my statement out of context.

Okay.

Then care to elaborate? Because looking at the games released in the past 30 years I would be somewhat of an hypocrite by considering this trailer the flagship of immaturity.

Or is the fact that people are over-analyzing things and judging the game before release?

Because without proper context your post seems like it's purpose was just rustling jimmies.

 

[Podunk]

I guess the point is that even when faced with incredibly retarded enemies, Agent 47 is still a ruthlessly efficient killer? You know, it would have made sense if they were actually nuns, considering he has a past with that one missionary. I know everyone is supposed to hate this with the entirety of their being, but I can't help but think 'yup, that's what I would do if I was playing the game, distract a group of enemies with an explosion to take them out sneakily, using my pistol because it's small, deadly, and efficient.' I hope this game will be good.

 

[hippo24]

You see, on the surface you might think that the trailer is silly. But Scantily clad nuns would be a perfectly reasonable weapon to fight a man who survives by subtly infiltrating the ranks of his enemies...I think they are really on to something here.

 

[=Doc=]

Right..

First off, I am glad David Bateson is not involved with this game. It will make it a lot easier to just not think of it as a Hitman game if I decide to play it.

It doesn't look like a bad game based on what I've seen so far, but it is too much of a shift for me to think of this as a Hitman game.

But my skepticism has more to do with the story rather than the gameplay.

I don't need 47 at his 'lowest point'. I don't need to have one of two recurring support characters killed off. I don't need his former employers to turn on him.

I do not need these stupid changes in my beloved franchise!

ICA, Diane and agent Smith where there to give 47 a purpose and a place in the world. Taking them away will not help you tell a better story.

Then again, telling a better story is probably not what they are going for. Telling a brand new story, on the other hand..

You know what? This should have been a reboot, not a sequel.
They should have rebooted this fucker. I'm not saying I would be less disappointed if they did, but it would make several things a lot easier to swallow.
New voice actor, new face, no Diana, no ICA, more over-the-top action than usual.
In a reboot, no problem. In the existing franchise, big problem!

Or, even better, Make it a remake!
Remake the first game, make ICA an untrustworthy organization from the git-go, build up Dianas character in such a way that it will make great sense to kill her off, maybe drop that Asian prostitute that kinda didn't fit into the first game because she was kinda silly and tried to kiss 47 after he rescued her?
Also, if we're remaking, how about tying the game closer to the movie? We could remove the 'super clone assassin' bit and replace it with an organization training orphans as assassins! Maybe we can have him team up with that prostitute from the film and have her be a love interest as well!

 

[geizr]

You took my statement out of context.

Okay.

Then care to elaborate? Because looking at the games released in the past 30 years I would be somewhat of an hypocrite by considering this trailer the flagship of immaturity.

Or is the fact that people are over-analyzing things and judging the game before release?

Because without proper context your post seems like it's purpose was just rustling jimmies.

It's not a matter of secure or insecure; it's more a matter whether video games will be used as a form of expression that is enabled to explore concepts, philosophies, socio-political issues, or to explore other modes of the human experience, hence more fulfilling its potential as a medium, rather than always reducing to base "violence porn". It's not so much whether the rest of the world is seeing it this way; it's a matter of whether the game developers themselves, as well as gamers, are seeing the medium such to elevate the hobby to a more life-enriching level. It's not so much that this trailer is the pinnacle example, but more that it is a continuing example of the long history of video games tending to not venture past this kind of shallow, base pandering to 14-year-old male hormone. It's a question of whether video gaming will ever go past this such people (by which I mean gamers and non-gamers alike) can think critically and converse rationally about video games without devolving into arguments and conflicts resulting from prejudices, distorted perceptions, and misinformed preconceptions which are derived from such constant tasteless, tacky presentation.

Honestly, as far as jimmy rustling, it seems to me that jimmies should be more rustled at the fact that this trailer presents the perception of what the game developers and their marketing team think of gamers. Again, this is not a matter of being secure or insecure. It's a matter of determining the desired mode of interaction with others and performing the actions and presenting oneself in a manner that achieves the goal of realizing that desired mode. If one desires to be treated as a child, then one acts like a child. If one desires to be treated as a responsible adult, then one acts as a responsible adult. It has nothing to do with being secure in oneself and more to do with simply controlling the social environment such to achieve a particular goal.

More clearly, is this the kind of game we want developers to continue creating, or do we want developers to think beyond this and produce games that go beyond this kind of mere pandering? If no effort is made to change the perception of game developers that this is only kind of game that will appeal to games (and, hence, sell), then this kind of game is all they will continue to produce. If the gaming community is fine with that, then carry on. However, if the gaming community is not fine with that, then it is up to the community to change the perception and interaction such that a wider gamut of games will be considered to be viable for production. Again, this is not a matter of being secure or insecure in oneself; it's a matter of determining how the interaction proceeds and what we get out of it.

My statement was not to "rustle jimmies", in any way. It was more a expression of my own desire to see video gaming go beyond its current very narrow bounds to realize a potential of expression and exploration that can be more educational, thought-provoking, and informative than base pandering to the lowest common denominator. This is not to say that there can not be games that are just "violence porn"; it is more to say that we should throw other things into the mix. Let's get away from the steady diet of just one kind of thing and diversify to a wider pallet of possibilities.

That's what I mean by taking it more seriously. I just didn't want to write a wall-of-text on the issue. However, my being pithy is causing you to misinterpret my meaning and intent; so, since it is my own desire to avoid such miscommunication, I am forced to generate this wall-of-text in an effort to clarify my position (that is, achieving my own goal of avoiding miscommunication and the resulting conflicts that can occur). If I had not responded in this manner, how would you deal with my words in future communications? Would you take them seriously?

 

[ElPatron]

Snip Hard 2: Snip Harder

The problem is that your post partially assumes that gaming is still inside narrow bounds. It is not. Maybe it's easy to forget that many games have shattered the "bounds".

Just because you or me were 14 year olds a few years ago, doesn't mean that no new 14 year olds are playing. They also have a place in this industry, for better or worse they actually consume M rated games.

Which reminds me... Only a small percentage of games released actually have the M rating.

There is stupid, shitty music and stupid, shitty movies. Gaming is no different. Machete absolutely sucked, doesn't mean I couldn't enjoy it as the over the top self-parody it was. "Violence-porn"? Suit yourself. I judge entertainment content for the entertainment value.

You can't make gaming the equivalent of books or movies. People have tried and they have failed.

 

[geizr]

Snip Hard 2: Snip Harder

The problem is that your post partially assumes that gaming is still inside narrow bounds. It is not. Maybe it's easy to forget that many games have shattered the "bounds".

Just because you or me were 14 year olds a few years ago, doesn't mean that no new 14 year olds are playing. They also have a place in this industry, for better or worse they actually consume M rated games.

Which reminds me... Only a small percentage of games released actually have the M rating.

There is stupid, shitty music and stupid, shitty movies. Gaming is no different. Machete absolutely sucked, doesn't mean I couldn't enjoy it as the over the top self-parody it was. "Violence-porn"? Suit yourself. I judge entertainment content for the entertainment value.

You can't make gaming the equivalent of books or movies. People have tried and they have failed.

And yet, many more have not tread outside those bounds. It's not about an M rating; a game rated G can have a lot of depth and expression. It's about the approach that is taken to themes and subjects within the game. Also, if you read my response carefully, you will see that I admit that games such as Hitman are allowed to exist. I do not have a problem with the occasional panderous or silly or "violence porn" type game, per se. That's simply spanning the gamut of possibilities. My problem comes when that seems to be the only kind of thing that, at least, the larger developers and publishers are willing and able to produce. The gaming diet becomes too monotonous.

Yes, there are going to be shitty games and panderous games, as well there will be more enlightened games. That is a given. The question is to what percentage of mixture of each do we strive. My perception is that the game industry is striving to much toward a greater mix of the panderous games. However, if you feel that my perception on that is wrong, then that is simply a point where we have a disagreement of viewpoint.

I don't desire for gaming to be like books or movies because the medium does not operate like a book or movie. However, it is a mode of expression and communication that has a potentiality that transcends the type of medium and is much greater than what I have seen done. However, I do not perceive the game industry as really striving toward realizing that potentiality. Again, if you disagree with that, then it is simply a point on which we have a difference of opinion.

 

[ElPatron]

And yet, many more have not tread outside those bounds. It's not about an M rating; a game rated G can have a lot of depth and expression.

I was just saying that those games stay fresh in our minds even though most games are not violent.

It's about the approach that is taken to themes and subjects within the game. Also, if you read my response carefully, you will see that I admit that games such as Hitman are allowed to exist. I do not have a problem with the occasional panderous or silly or "violence porn" type game, per se. That's simply spanning the gamut of possibilities. My problem comes when that seems to be the only kind of thing that, at least, the larger developers and publishers are willing and able to produce. The gaming diet becomes too monotonous.

Don't expect publishers to take risks.

What do you think it would make more revenue? A making new Micheal Bay movie or funding a guy that might be the next Lars von Trier but who can't guarantee you profit?

Hey, I hate the fact that Call of Duty has been released under different names for years as much as anyone can possibly hate. But I just have to accept it that it's what people are willing to pay for.

Yes, there are going to be shitty games and panderous games, as well there will be more enlightened games. That is a given. The question is to what percentage of mixture of each do we strive. My perception is that the game industry is striving to much toward a greater mix of the panderous games.

But like I said, M rated games are a minority. The percentage is very low.


I still think that violence-porn isn't the right way to characterize the trailer or the Hitman game itself. Hostel is torture/violence-porn. Hitman glorifies stealthy/creative kills and glamorizes assassinations.

In the trailer you see strangling, punching, nose-breaking and shooting. It's hardly violence porn, and it's stretching a lot compared to previous Hitman games.

 

[RJ Dalton]

That looks incredibly stupid. Who is this trailer aimed at? 13 year olds?

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

I don't get why people are offended by this, but I find it delightful that they are. I love it when mere video game trailers are enough to shake people's fragile egos.

Most parts in Hitman don't go down like this, at least not when I play. Normally the nuns would walk up to the hotel all ready to unleash hell saying "Aw yeah, we're fuckin' badass" and would pay no mind to the kindly janitor walking by them. They'd blow up the hotel, and in the confusion of the explosion, notice that their car and all of it's stuff was missing.

See, its true that this trailer misrepresents the game. I love the stealth aspects of Hitman, because there are a ton of third person shooters out there, but not one of them lets you do what you've been able to do in the past Hitman games. Hopefully Absolution will do the series justice - some of us have been waiting for this sequel for a long time.

 

[Taunta]

Slutty assassin nuns....ugh, you're serious, aren't you? I'm sorry, I must have taken a wrong turn and ended up in middle school.

 

[geizr]

--snip--

I'll give you that calling it "violence porn" was probably an exaggeration on my part; however, I still feel the trailer is in poor taste and is a continuing example of a bad precedent.

EDIT: had to clean up the snipped quote.

 

[BenEEeee]

This is why you don't hire strippers to do an assassin's job.

 

[ElPatron]

Slutty assassin nuns....ugh, you're serious, aren't you? I'm sorry, I must have taken a wrong turn and ended up in middle school.

Some people are in middle school.

continuing example of a bad precedent.

The "bad precedent" has been established. The Hitman trailer did nothing special at all, it was just released in a time everyone is hung up on how hung up games are "art" and how many times they can say "misogynistic" like if they were playing "Zitch Dog".

I remember when it was Fox News bitching about the ability to punch prostitutes in GTA. Now it's gamers themselves.

Nobody complained when Prince of Persia Warrior Within had flexible girls in leather moaning "There is so much pleasure in pain..." while you were trying to slice them in half.

Maybe we can have him team up with that prostitute from the film and have her be a love interest as well!

Hitman... Love interest...? Does not compute.

 

[Taunta]

Slutty assassin nuns....ugh, you're serious, aren't you? I'm sorry, I must have taken a wrong turn and ended up in middle school.

Some people are in middle school.

continuing example of a bad precedent.

The "bad precedent" has been established. The Hitman trailer did nothing special at all, it was just released in a time everyone is hung up on how hung up games are "art" and how many times they can say "misogynistic" like if they were playing "Zitch Dog".

I remember when it was Fox News bitching about the ability to punch prostitutes in GTA. Now it's gamers themselves.

Nobody complained when Prince of Persia Warrior Within had flexible girls in leather moaning "There is so much pleasure in pain..." while you were trying to slice them in half.

And the some people in middle school should not be playing this game.

This has nothing to do with games as an art form. No, it didn't do anything special, but it should be called out because these attitudes are not acceptable anymore. The times, they are a-changin.

 

[ElPatron]

And the some people in middle school should not be playing this game.

And they shouldn't be playing Modern Warfare either! I admit that I played +18 games since I was 12, it would be highly hypocritical of me to say that it's unacceptable to let them play.

This is something I have said on other threads. I refuse to say anything against pirates (not piracy as a whole) because I know that during the 90's it was socially acceptable to rip tapes and later CD's. Heck, they used to have labels saying that lending cassettes or showing them in schools was prohibited - and we did it anyway. I know that many people who rail against pirates in this forum are complete hypocrites because they stole music when they were younger and they know it. They just think "it's different now".

This has nothing to do with games as an art form. No, it didn't do anything special, but it should be called out because these attitudes are not acceptable anymore. The times, they are a-changin.

They aren't acceptable anymore... by your standards. I can't find anything on the trailer that is unacceptable except the fact that it shows Hitman in a more action-oriented fight.

 

[Taunta]

And the some people in middle school should not be playing this game.

And they shouldn't be playing Modern Warfare either! I admit that I played +18 games since I was 12, it would be highly hypocritical of me to say that it's unacceptable to let them play.

This has nothing to do with games as an art form. No, it didn't do anything special, but it should be called out because these attitudes are not acceptable anymore. The times, they are a-changin.

They aren't acceptable anymore... by your standards. I can't find anything on the trailer that is unacceptable except the fact that it shows Hitman in a more action-oriented fight.

No they shouldn't. No one's arguing that they should, so your point is irrelevant.

It's not just me. There is an overwhelming number of people who don't like this, so I'd say it's a wider standard than mine.

As for your last statement, if you can't see anything wrong with "hey, it's a woman, let's ogle her ass in the countless butt and tit shots, maybe jack off, and then watch her be brutally murdered FOR FUN!" it's because you are exactly the kind of person that this trailer is pandering to, and you can't possibly understand why it would be alienating to someone else from a different perspective. I have nothing more to say here, other than maybe you need to check your privilege. [http://kotaku.com/5868595/nerds-and-male-privilege]