I would point to the people who complained that Abby in The Last of Us 2 was visibly buff for a woman, even though women with that physique actually exist in real life and it would make sense for a woman in that situation to need to be physically strong. But that's a problem to people who want women in games to be helpless and weak eye-candy, so that they can be won like prizes.
A few points on that.
1) Abby technically is a combination of 3 different women. 1 for the body, 1 for the face and 1 who did the voice acting and apparently Mo-cap.
2) No the "real women can exist who look like her" argument isn't a valid one especially not in the post apocalypse. Mostly because they it's based round manipulation of the human body's systems and women who do look like that generally only maintain it for I think it's 6 weeks out of a 12 week cycle at most.
3) Video on it all for you.
4) It's been found out they actually still buffed Abby up somewhat beyond the person whose body they scanned and based her on
5) People are fine with Ellie. Hell there's plenty of Kickass women in geek media. I mean come on you realise Buffy exists as a franchise right?
42% of their budget to merch and 20 devs? I can see exactly what went wrong now. Too many people at once full of terrible ideas and some of them had the "genius" plan to make merch for their dating sim that isn't even out yet. What's with this project? It sounds like a titanic dumpster fire waiting to happen
I worked out based on their tiers they're charging $75 for a custom Tote bag.
I get they're looking to make some profit but I worked it out and including shipping you can probably custom print your own for $20-$30 and that's not including things like bulk discounts you can get.
That's kind of the problem isn't it? These people just expect to be able to put out trash and demand that it's a hit. They expect it to be successful just because it's inclusive or whatever.
It's the same mentality that says, "we need more women and people of color doing X job". As if just stick someone there who meets such a superficial criteria is an automatic road to success.
When the media blames men because Charlies Angel's sucks, they say men wont support a female driven action film. Almost as if the Alien's franchise doesn't exist.
When the media blames white people for why a person of color can't be a super hero. Almost as if they haven't seen Spawn. or anything Denzel Washington and The Rock make.
People will support anything that's good, and just making your trash "diverse" doesn't give you the right to automatically be praised. Frankly I think it is a con job like what Anita Sarkeesian did. Where is Feminist Frequency these days? I know Anita is chilling like a queen somewhere, meanwhile all her employees got fuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked.
EDIT: Turns out she makes podcasts with the same two people she's managed to keep around. Wonder how their making money on those >10k viewership non--videos.
I heard a suggestion about this before.
It's one of two things,
1) the media constantly underestimates people and thinks they don't have the attention span to remember.
Or a more worrying
2) It's a testing method to see how many people are "On message". I wish I was joking but apparently it happens in dictatorships where they put out complete bullshit news like how North Korea claims how it's teams win everything and it's leader invented all this stuff and can fly and cure any disease via a touch. The populous know it's lies mostly but the plan is to demoralise people by forcing them to accept the lie or people stand up and then people know those individuals could be trouble and can more specifically target them. In the case of the media at present it's more likely to give the "faithful" who blindly follow the line they put out some-one to declare an enemy. Then said agitator media can sit back and report on the fights they in part helped start.
mennohenselmans.com
kotaku.com
