Why are people so against 'feminism' in gaming?

[kurupt87]

Still, I would honestly like to know if you find the idea of this minigame having female playable characters vying to capture the aforementioned babe honestly offensive. How does it detract from the mindless fun of this mingame? Aside from all this talk of feminism and feminazis, what is objectionable about this proposal?

Actually I'm a little confused how that minigame is going to work. Is it going to be multiplayer or singleplayer? If it is multiplayer then I assume Duke while not be the standered character model, in which case I see no problem implementing a female character model. I'm pretty sure it is multiplayer since it would basicly be capture the flag but they could make a singleplayer CTF(or CTB) section in this case. If it is singleplayer then I assume the charcter would be Duke in order to maintain countinuity.

Hello again.

MP in DNF has everyone using the Duke Nukem skin. You can personalise it as you get experience/play more/obtain whatever arbitrary thing they reward you with for playing, but you are always Duke.

 

[Pist0l 07]

Still, I would honestly like to know if you find the idea of this minigame having female playable characters vying to capture the aforementioned babe honestly offensive. How does it detract from the mindless fun of this mingame? Aside from all this talk of feminism and feminazis, what is objectionable about this proposal?

Actually I'm a little confused how that minigame is going to work. Is it going to be multiplayer or singleplayer? If it is multiplayer then I assume Duke while not be the standered character model, in which case I see no problem implementing a female character model. I'm pretty sure it is multiplayer since it would basicly be capture the flag but they could make a singleplayer CTF(or CTB) section in this case. If it is singleplayer then I assume the charcter would be Duke in order to maintain countinuity.

Hello again.

MP in DNF has everyone using the Duke Nukem skin. You can personalise it as you get experience/play more/obtain whatever arbitrary thing they reward you with for playing, but you are always Duke.

Intersting choice on the developers front. That is going to look really weird seeing twenty Dukes running around, but who knows, mabye I'll get used to it.

 

[kurupt87]

Still, I would honestly like to know if you find the idea of this minigame having female playable characters vying to capture the aforementioned babe honestly offensive. How does it detract from the mindless fun of this mingame? Aside from all this talk of feminism and feminazis, what is objectionable about this proposal?

Actually I'm a little confused how that minigame is going to work. Is it going to be multiplayer or singleplayer? If it is multiplayer then I assume Duke while not be the standered character model, in which case I see no problem implementing a female character model. I'm pretty sure it is multiplayer since it would basicly be capture the flag but they could make a singleplayer CTF(or CTB) section in this case. If it is singleplayer then I assume the charcter would be Duke in order to maintain countinuity.

Hello again.

MP in DNF has everyone using the Duke Nukem skin. You can personalise it as you get experience/play more/obtain whatever arbitrary thing they reward you with for playing, but you are always Duke.

Intersting choice on the developers front. That is going to look really weird seeing twenty Dukes running around, but who knows, mabye I'll get used to it.

I think it's because the game is about Duke. It's not really about him saving the day like Master Chief or Soap do, it's just something he does. In other words, the game is not about killing bad guys it's about Duke, who kills bad guys.

It makes sense to carry this into the MP too and, as I said, you can personalise it somewhat.

I read an article where they said all the MP skins would be based on Duke but, who knows? Maybe the current delay is them implementing a boatload of alternate skins. We'll find out once the game lands.

 

[Pist0l 07]

Still, I would honestly like to know if you find the idea of this minigame having female playable characters vying to capture the aforementioned babe honestly offensive. How does it detract from the mindless fun of this mingame? Aside from all this talk of feminism and feminazis, what is objectionable about this proposal?

Actually I'm a little confused how that minigame is going to work. Is it going to be multiplayer or singleplayer? If it is multiplayer then I assume Duke while not be the standered character model, in which case I see no problem implementing a female character model. I'm pretty sure it is multiplayer since it would basicly be capture the flag but they could make a singleplayer CTF(or CTB) section in this case. If it is singleplayer then I assume the charcter would be Duke in order to maintain countinuity.

Hello again.

MP in DNF has everyone using the Duke Nukem skin. You can personalise it as you get experience/play more/obtain whatever arbitrary thing they reward you with for playing, but you are always Duke.

Intersting choice on the developers front. That is going to look really weird seeing twenty Dukes running around, but who knows, mabye I'll get used to it.

I think it's because the game is about Duke. It's not really about him saving the day like Master Chief or Soap do, it's just something he does. In other words, the game is not about killing bad guys it's about Duke, who kills bad guys.

It makes sense to carry this into the MP too and, as I said, you can personalise it somewhat.

I read an article where they said all the MP skins would be based on Duke but, who knows? Maybe the current delay is them implementing a boatload of alternate skins. We'll find out once the game lands.

Well I just thought it was weird because even in other games, the skins aren't necessarliy the same as the main character. In Halo they looked similar but were different colors and they also don't call the character MasterChief. But this is Duke, so I guess he can't really let anyone else stand in for him, can he.

 

[Pist0l 07]

Hmmm....like you said this is a debate where neither one of us is likely to change are views at the end of it but actually agree on several points so I'll just address two points I feel like I need to address.

Obviously I disagree. If I walk up to some bloke in a pub and call him "bad things" I fully expect to get punched, rightly so.

Yeah, I'd expect you'd get hit but I don't think it is right. Words are just words, and insults, especialy from a stranger, should be ignored. I'd question why you walked up to some bloke in a pub and called him those "bad things" but he still shouldn't have punched you. If you pressed charges I'd think it would be silly, but really, he shouldn't have punched you.

Well I and, as far as I am aware, the scientific community agree with my premise. Maybe not with my conclusion but with my premise certainly.

Do you know of any these studies or where I should look? If my view is scientificly incorrect then I shouldn't continue to hold it. I am still a little skeptical because the premise seems like a bit of a generalization but if its backed by science then it is kinda hard to say its not true.

This is why I don't like internet debates that much because I feel its hard to make points without them going sideways.

 

[Pist0l 07]

Actually one more point I want to talk about.

You're imagining speech as some cold debate over an arcane point that one is trying to convince the other of. That is not the case. The pen is mightier than the sword and that fully translates to the spoken word. You seem to be arguing a case where a couple has a debate, not too dissimilar to what we are having now, which is concluded and neither party convinces the other of their point of view. One party, I'll nominate myself for this dubious honour, takes umbridge at your inability to comprehend my argument and then threatens to track you down and punch you. That would be, coarseness incoming, fucking absurd.

No, an argument between two people who know eachother intimately are uniquely capable of insulting one another far beyond the capabilities of, for example, some tosser down the pub; an argument between them does not even have to own an important point, the point is an excuse to have an argument where you can insult one another. The insults are even more hurtful because not only are they personally crafted and perfectly targeted they are coming from someone that you, at least ostensibly, love.

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting it, but it seems as if you are saying the argument is a pretext in order for them to insult each other. From my experience when a couple argues one of them is trying to get the other to change a certian behavior they do not like. This is not the only reason for arguments, but in my experience it is the reason for a majority of them. Naturaly there will be some insults, and I agree they will be more hurtful coming from someone you intimatly care about, but they are not insulting the other person for the sole purpose of getting them upset. If they are doing it just to upset the other person, then they're not really argueing, they are just insulting each other; and if they are just insulting the other person to get a rise out of them then I'd say at least one of them does not care about the other person.

Also, I really liked the profanity warning in there. It gave the statment some class.

 

[Jupsto]

For example, the recent gamestation advertising campaign saying their pre-owned games were cheaper than your girlfriend.

Sounds like it was just a joke. people make much much more offensive jokes in comedy, usually yes they are less one sided. but people who get offended by the above needs to develop a sense of humour.

It was never funny. A sense of humour is not lacking.

People who get offended by such things need to get their priorities right.

True! that was the term I should have used.

 

[0thello]

Well I assume it's the same reason most mature conversations about race, gender, sexuality or disability cannot be had with most gamers. They are too young, inexperienced, sensitive, or most likely "privileged" to be able to cope with that material. So rather than have it in and assess what the people whom do want to explore think exactly, they lash out so they can protect their 'investment'; The folks at bioware recently dealt with same sex relationships against a gamer whom was waving his "demographic" ticket at them screaming like a little child that he was part of the main demographic (a white, heterosexual, male) and so it didn't make "numerical" sense to have the option. The folks at bioware gave him a good verbal update and yet I doubt it truly sunk in because the sensitive guy that he is; is far too in-touch with that privileged ignorance of his.

I've given up on most gamers to tell you the truth, the community is populated by a horrid cabal of people whom I simply don't want to know, because they wear their ignorance as a badge of honour. Of course there are outliers and those ones I'd gladly game with or even speak to. One of the best roll-your-eyes moments is when you get these sensitive little prigs telling others to "get over it" or some other flippant tripe that doesn't address the problematic, higher or critical discourse.

I've been reading a lot of video game related media topics (semiotics, discourse, etc) and boy it isn't looking very up for the fan community in this medium, they may actually be respected less than comic ones.

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Frankly,I find it ironic that people have to discuss and agree for anything to get accomplished as this by human nature means that nothing gets accomplished and in the end only causes or worsens disputes.It makes those simple casual games seem oh so nice in that you really can't discuss the reasonings behind a cow saying moo.

I think that problem comes from internt anonymity which leads to people acting like ass since there are no repercussions for it. If you get people together in real life they are usally much nicer to each other and I bet they'd appear to agree more as well. Its much harder to convey complex opinions in text windows. I had a hard time convey this opinion via internt comments, but that could just be my poor english skills.

True,people most often seem to feel "protected" just staring at a screen to talk and I can see how it affects many kids into acting the same way in actual discussion whether it be actual text talk,descriptions of sighing rather then the action or full out trolling.No,you still see this stuff in all politics.Think of any news discussion that doesn't either agree or end in yelling.Either agree or fight and nothing gets done.Why,we're doing it right now.As for English,just try spell check if you really are having trouble.

Well I use spellcheck when I'm really unsure, but I was reffering to making an idea flow cohesively through a paragraph.(I didn't mispell anything in my post did I?) As for what you see in the news, I don't know. I feel like a lot news is just entertainment made on them are more for show rather then an accurate view on peoples' opinions. Often I hear people saying things like if this bill is passes/fails, then our nation will be doomed/saved(I'm in the USA to be clear). Whatever happens people will contiue comment on it for a couple days then the news moves on and you could never hear about it again. If anything I'm worried people will miss important news that doesn't have much "entertainment" value like the new antibiotic resistant bug going around. Apperently it hit Israel pretty hard and because antibotic are ineffective against it, it has a 36% mortality rate, yet it was only briefly mentioned in the morning news. But this is getting off topic now. Yeah, people will disagree, and some will disagree vehemently, but if they sit down face to face for a couple of hours, they'ld probably be able to come to some comprimises. As for nothing getting done, well, I don't think I've ever seen internet disscusions lead to big changes. I wouldn't be so pessemistic about meaningful change happening. Things get done, change comes, even if it is rather slow.

I can respect that opinion,mainly as I see everything to be chained in one form or another in some great web of fact.As for spelling,you misspelled internet for one,but we all goof so I don't blame ya.

 

[MacGuges]

I consider myself a feminist, but I've known other men who object to feminist critiques to pop-culture. My impression has been that cultural change alarms them. They've never known having to argue for more respect or fairer treatment and they imagine that feminism doesn't apply to their lives as males. They may have ignorant ideas of what feminists hope for, and distrust what they do say. In other words, it's the same story in gaming as its been as in a dozen other communities. Guys grow up with privilege and don't always consider what it's like to not have that privilege.

 

[MacGuges]

For example, the recent gamestation advertising campaign saying their pre-owned games were cheaper than your girlfriend. When people complained that it was offensive the minority of gamers told them to shut up and get over it. So..why are people so against gaming becoming more gender neutral and accepting of female, child and elderly gamers.

Most gamers reacted this way due to a multitude of reasons. Firstly, in a similar vein to what I said above, a lot of gamers (typically, but not always male) believe that bringing topics such as feminism and political correctness into video gaming will effectively change the video games that are made, and many, in a not entirely unjustified opinion, believe that by censoring video games, what made us enjoy them in the first place will be lost. Secondly, some people (this isn't restricted to the video gaming industry, by the way) feel that it seems like feminists are always complaining about something, and that somebody always wants a video game taken off the shelves for various, usually politically correct reasons (whether or not this has any basis in reality is debatable, but their reasoning stands), and this can really tire some people who feel as if the video games they love to play are constantly under threat. Lastly, a lot of people see many of the lobbyists, feminists, etc., as not particularly interested in video gaming, and only interested in stirring up things for the sake of stirring things up; that they don't really understand video games and thus shouldn't have the right to try and change them.

I think you raise a valuable point that feminism can be perceived an intrusion of political activism into ordinary life. So, "they're not gamers, they're activists making trouble". Considering how stressed people become from political tensions in this country, this reaction is not surprising. But activists are ordinary people too. Feminists go to PAX [http://geekfeminism.org/2011/02/04/some-reasons-im-looking-forwards-to-pax-east/] to have a good time with other gamers. And speaking for myself, a gamer for over twenty-five years, I'm also a peace activist and will be attending the antiwar rally in NYC this Saturday [http://nationalpeaceconference.org/]. While I know the older generation of peace activists don't play a lot of computer games - does that really surprise you? - I believe we could engage players and game designers who share our sentiments to encourage them, rather than protesting games based on superficial qualities. I imagine there are younger feminist activists who are thinking the same way.

 

[eatpandas]

It's easy to use the "we need to preserve our culture" rationality when that "culture" only benefits you.

There are plenty of horrible practices that can be explained away as "culture", when they most certainly should be phased out. Examples: child brides, female circumcision, honor killings, the list can go on. Just because something has been going on for a long time does NOT make it right.