|
Jack Gladney posted:What if a girl and a boy had fun playing a sport one time though? What would happen if men and women had fun with a ball despite physical variation? Would they have fun together? But seriously: I didn't say it wouldn't be totally fine to have men and women characters interact in video games. This is already happening and the earth is still spinning. What I said was that if you insist on this being a necessary antecedent of equality, you're falling into a naturalist fallacy trap. Let us English posted:I was thinking of Baboons as a Strepsirrhini primate for some reason, which are monomorphic.
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's a good idea. It would really be no different from Ali versus Tyson in Fight Night or whatever. Pro sports games already transgress against the boundary of time itself in order to construct fantasy scenarios; how is gender any more absurd or insurmountable a barrier? I don't disagree in the context of videogames, I'm just confused by her extension to professional sports in reality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Reeducation camp obviously. Countenancing a possibility is not insisting. I can imagine tons of good that could come from men and women playing sports together, in terms of how they would think about themselves and each other.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Reeducation camp obviously. Nobody said it was a necessary antecedent to equality. You are jumping at shadows.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Please don't talk about movies in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Countenancing a possibility is not insisting. Thinking about it, kids start playing video games at a time where men and women are still physically basically equivalent, but just about to enter puberty. Perhaps ironically, one of the sports where women are about as good as men is shooting. The history of skeet shooting is pretty funny; 1992, the sport was one of the few remaining unisex ones and a woman won the olympics. In 1996, she was not allowed to defend her title because the sport had been segregated, without actually introducing a female event. Now, it's just regular segregation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Motto posted:I don't disagree in the context of videogames, I'm just confused by her extension to professional sports in reality. I thought she explained it pretty clearly.  Obviously we, including Sarkeesian, cannot imagine a world in which men and women could truly compete against one another in sport. Creative arts can help us to imagine things that are not currently possible. And if you find yourself saying "well it can never be possible!" then what is your investment in saying that? Why does it trouble you that people will explore the possibility and fail? (Not directed at you)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
I think it would be cool to play a woman's team aginst a man's team. it just the idea that if we do this then we will have a unisex world cup in years. I am all for unisex in sports like baseball and basketball (US football can gently caress off) but it silly to think not having it in a game is going to hold everything back. this is also the first FIFA game with woman teams, and this is EA I won't be shock if it will be as a feature next year even though it can be fixed with a 30MB patch. EDIT: SedanChair made the point clear, this just prove that twitter is a horrible place to give a opinion. Cyron fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I thought she explained it pretty clearly. When I imagine real-world intersex soccer, I find two options: free sex ratio teams, which means almost exclusively male teams; and forced-ratio teams, which I guess could be a funny niche sport, for those who like soccer-y things. For a realistic answer to Anita's question: I've last played FIFA like 30 years ago and back then, players had vaguely "realistic" attributes (oriented on real player's performances). If you did that in an intersex context, you'd basically have every single woman be worse than 99.5% (or whatever 90~100% number) of men, and I imagine that's not the kind of game you want to put out, as a publisher. If it's just skinning - yeah, why not I guess? Though I still think anybody in any way asking for this to happen is a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
This generation is more of less won't have unisex sports, when we have footballers beating woman and getting a cover up and a slap on the wrist I don't think this will be the same culture (sports culture) that would have woman on the team. Only way it can work if we teach them young. honestly I feel we can have a solid debate on Sexism and overall biggity in sport culture. why can't we have that on a real issue but we have this thread based on a twitter drama sane people moved on from 6 months ago. Cyron fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I thought she explained it pretty clearly. She would make a video of male players slidetackling female players in a matter of minutes. Who am I kidding? She would announce the video in five minutes and produce it two years later.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Cyron posted:This generation is more of less won't have unisex sports, when we have footballers beating woman and getting a cover up and a slap on the wrist I don't think this will be the same culture (sports culture) that would have woman on the team. Well really kids do play sports together when their young, at least when I was growing up. When kids played soccer it was guys and girls, and when you think about it girls and guys aren't that physically athletic than one another provided they aren't training. Like throughout my life, if people wanted to have a friendly sports game it wasn't a matter of "no guys or girls allowed, we'll imbalance the teams" it was "let's play, choose two captains and have them choose the teams" and usually it's a balanced fight. Really outside of professional sports or leagues, I don't know anyone that's seriously goes "no girls allowed in our friendly game!" when friends are having a day at the park or the beach.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Question for those anti-Gamergate. What are your thoughts on the SPJ panel debate? The Society of Professional Journalists are still looking for people to represent the anti-gamergate side to take part in the debate. Would any of you be willing to go? They're offering free trips to florida. It's August 15th (the anniversary of thezoepost).
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
So why is Sarkeesian even part of this gamergate thing? She's a critic who, like everybody who opposes her, has suggestions for how video games should be (i.e. in terms of content, features, etc.). Is it just a matter of timing? The overreactions to both her and Quinn happened around the same time as far as I can tell (August 2014); did she get swept along for the ride? How much crossover is there between the ethics in games journalism crowd and the SJWs telling us what to do crowd?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
OMG JC a Bomb! posted:She would make a video of male players slidetackling female players in a matter of minutes. Is there no end to her scheming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Gamergate is widely viewed as a right-wing thing, since it's promoted by a Breitbart writer and other conservative activists. I'm someone who dreams of the socialist revolution as much as most people here, but while I'm not actively spreading internet flamewars I do read what advocates of both sides write, and I guess I'm sort of a sympathizer? Not over the Zoe Quinn bullshit, she did what a lot of men would do in a reversed situation and many of her haters undoubtedly know it. But the attention that Feminist Frequency gets for identifying what some see as problems, I guess I think it's a bit much. Anita Sarkeesian seems to spend a lot of her Twitter time not just on video games, but on other concepts like how much income women have lost out on because they looked up to Disney Princesses as role models. I think she's as much of a culture warrior as Sean Hannity is, and I think they're about equally wrong. She seems to mostly be upset because games are making a gendered target customer, but publishing and broadcasting and music and other forms of media have overwhelmingly been focused on one gender or another for centuries. Idiots who have threatened her safety have become a lightning rod of such ill repute, and it's unfortunate that they aren't all arrested and forgotten about because these people are such scum that critical thinking is often abandoned in the face of such a reaction. Most people don't care what Anita is saying, because regardless of content she does have the right to say it and the threats to that trumps all other matters. Game blogs lately have been all staffed by a similar profile of people, almost all folks under 35 who are a little bit counter-cultural. I guess the latter part is understandable because video games were seen as subversive during their youth playing them. Almost all the sites are run out of either one of California's two largest cities or I guess in the case of Vox Media somewhere in New York. They have lately been dedicating a whole lot of time to indie PC development, a scene that tries just as hard to be as pretentiously underground as indie music is stereotyped to be. It feels like they're doing this because the editors themselves personally identify with these developers, who are also frequently young and embracing counter-cultural ideals or just promoting non-corporate development. These writers also try to support diversity to the strongest degree possible, and so a person in gender studies giving a critique about games is given the treatment that we all need to pay attention to this. And I think more than anything that's what annoys me, this feeling that in order to do their jobs they need to spotlight even the smallest, most inconsequential of developers or the most narrow of punditry. Cinema doesn't often work that way; the art house film scene has it's community, and every Oscars is sprawling with some foreign films few Americans saw, but there's just as much media that simply wants to talk about Mad Max, Jurassic World, and Terminator. And at some point, if every major blog wants to be NPR, with this wide focus on culture and the arts; there's going to be people who want to see the gaming blog version of Entertainment Weekly or dare I even say Fox News, with a focus first and foremost on what sells and little regard for the larger issues. That's what 90s video game print editorial looked like, and that was guided by far less "journalistic objectivity" than what you see today. Those magazines were directly trying to sell you something, and it was up to you to read through the marketing. But it made a lot of people feel good about being a fan. People say they want objectivity, but I think a whole lot of them don't. Craptacular! fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Jun 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:So why is Sarkeesian even part of this gamergate thing? She's a critic who, like everybody who opposes her, has suggestions for how video games should be (i.e. in terms of content, features, etc.). Eh not really. Most people criticism her views and point out she hasn't delivered on her kickstarter, but really she hasn't been a focus of gamergate. She's someone the SJWs cite a lot, largely because she's relatively sane and she's the one that's been doing interviews with the press about Gamergate. But really, if there was a list made of "enemies of gamergate" she probably wouldn't make the top 10. Now her partner McIntosh... that guy's a different story.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:Gamergate is widely viewed as a right-wing thing, since it's promoted by a Breitbart writer and other conservative activists. I'm someone who dreams of the socialist revolution as much as most people here, but while I'm not actively spreading internet flamewars I do read what advocates of both sides write, and I guess I'm sort of a sympathizer? Not over the Zoe Quinn bullshit, she did what a lot of men would do in a reversed situation and many of her haters undoubtedly know it. But the attention that Feminist Frequency gets for identifying what some see as problems, I guess I think it's a bit much. I feel like alot of them have this idea that video games should "elevated" and "uplifting" and "artistic" and that any game that doesnt have thier exact narrative is "damaging the image of game as an art" So now anita, josh, and the rest play culture warrior and get mad at big titles because they arn't all gone home or dont have "their narrative".
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:She seems to mostly be upset because games are making a gendered target customer, but publishing and broadcasting and music and other forms of media have overwhelmingly been focused on one gender or another for centuries. I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Her thesis is that media as a whole promotes certain gender roles, and the fact that there is more to it than just video games is not a refutation of what she's saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:Eh not really. Most people criticism her views and point out she hasn't delivered on her kickstarter, but really she hasn't been a focus of gamergate. She's someone the SJWs cite a lot, largely because she's relatively sane and she's the one that's been doing interviews with the press about Gamergate. But really, if there was a list made of "enemies of gamergate" she probably wouldn't make the top 10. She would be alot better if she detached herself from him. But i doubt he is going anywhere since he produces and writes the stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:22
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Is there no end to her scheming. Hey, Macbooks and flannel shirts don't buy themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:So why is Sarkeesian even part of this gamergate thing? She's a critic who, like everybody who opposes her, has suggestions for how video games should be (i.e. in terms of content, features, etc.). Honestly she is only involved in GG by proxy, the big drama bomb with her was a year before the whole drama with Zoe Quinn and the whole "KEEP WOMAN OUT OF MHA GAMEZ" moved to this. the whole GG poo poo did help her a ton since she is getting on shows and proving her point.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Her thesis is that media as a whole promotes certain gender roles, and the fact that there is more to it than just video games is not a refutation of what she's saying. Her claim actually seems to be that it is possible to better understand and contextualize the things we enjoy if we think about them critically, yet we can still enjoy them. A radical assault on our varied pleasures if ever there was one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
InsanityIsCrazy posted:The one A:I review that seemed dumb was the one by IGN, whose entire gripe rounded down to "the levels were too long and I died a lot," which only told me that he needed to lower the difficulty and stop hiding in lockers SedanChair posted:I thought she explained it pretty clearly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:Yeah that reminds me of the RLM guys (Rich and Jack) review of it or any game that has cutscenes/story because for some reason they just hate games where there is dialogue/story/talking to npcs at all, especially Jack which makes watching him try to play a game like Fallout New Vegas really frustrating because he won't talk to any NPC if he can. Gorgeous Ladies of Wresting will be the biggest gaming hit of 2015
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:So why is Sarkeesian even part of this gamergate thing? She's a critic who, like everybody who opposes her, has suggestions for how video games should be (i.e. in terms of content, features, etc.). Ok I'm getting tired of this. Gamergate is beyond that one girl loving some other dude, that's not their main point at all. It is beyond just "ethics in journalism" or whatever. Gamergate in the vaguest sense is an opposition of "SJWs" or "third wave feminists" or the call-out culture or Tumblrinas or whatever you want to call them. They are getting louder and louder and they may or may not already effected things outside of the internet, so Gamergate is the closest to an unified opposition to out-shout them. Sarkesian is disliked because she's underpreforming in her video production, said videos are poo poo and her opinions outside are questionable at best. She is also focusing on video games which is the main common element behind Gamergate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
There's a more general issue with software when you ask 'why does x feature not exist.' Features don't exist by default. 'Is this feature good' is only the first step. There's also, 'do we have the time,' 'are there other features that are higher priority,' 'is this a feature that only one person wants, one person who may be using it as a talking point and not actually buying FIFA16 either way?'
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:I miss the days when you could have a WWE game where you could have intergender matches. Not only that but you can have men do bikini contest, and everyone did so with Kane back when we had no clue what he looks likes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Bholder posted:Sarkesian is disliked because she's a oval office who HATES ALL MEN and DOESNT EVEN REALLY PLAY GAMES!!! Fixed (based on her twitter mentions)
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:Fixed (based on her twitter mentions) You know, I know your trolling but really why is there the obsession to frame everything gamergate as misogyny? Lots of issues and movements have their fringe extremists that are disowned by the core group, like most people that support the Palestinian cause do not support rear end in a top hat suicide bombing terrorists, and usually the debate can move beyond "your side has these terrible people in it". It's like people really believe that the only thing that could motivate people to protest a cause is due to misogyny because somehow beliefs like free speech and cleaning up corruption aren't good enough?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Bholder posted:Ok I'm getting tired of this. Okay, you know that your understanding of gamergate is different to other gamergaters', right? Including some in this very thread? For you, it's an explicitly reactionary response to people whose values are counter to yours. It wouldn't matter to you if Sarkeesian released videos every week with perfect white balance and uncrushed blacks, because fundamentally you feel personally threatened when somebody criticises the media you enjoy, or is the 'wrong type' of game consumer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Dr. Stab posted:I don't really get what you're trying to say here. Her thesis is that media as a whole promotes certain gender roles, and the fact that there is more to it than just video games is not a refutation of what she's saying. I don't think there's a problem that a game is designed primarily for men, or a magazine designed for primarily women, or a boy band that sings love songs primarily to young girls. The Beatles started off singing love songs primarily to young girls before finding a better purpose. It would be nice to see more ideas that don't cater to characteristics of one specific sex or another, but I don't think it's required of anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:You know, I know your trolling but really why is there the obsession to frame everything gamergate as misogyny? Probably because it started when some guy publicly posted a diatribe about what a slut his girlfriend was and how her slutyness was ruining games journalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:You know, I know your trolling but really why is there the obsession to frame everything gamergate as misogyny? All the specific criticism of Anita Sarkeesian in this thread seems weak as hell and boils down to: poor color timing, slow release of new videos, and collaborating with a man who posts silly things on his twitter. There are lots of sweeping statements like, "she's just as silly as the people who harass her!" without a lot to substantiate that claim. The backlash to her work seems disproportionate to these concerns, and so some remain curious. What is so poor about her work?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:You know, I know your trolling but really why is there the obsession to frame everything gamergate as misogyny? It's pretty simple though---Sarkeesian only got so much money in the first place because of all the hate speech thrown at her. That has been the main response to her from day 0. She is only well-known because of misogyny. If twitter shut-ins hadn't lost their poo poo over her, she wouldn't have received so much funding and notoriety, she wouldn't have been on TV, and she wouldn't still be the topic of discussion now. Misogynist gamers created their own worst enemy, and it's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:No, not your mistake. The deck was terribly stacked against you, to the extent that it was basically impossible for you to figure out their bullshit. It was the authors' (and editors and reviewers') fault for not writing this better. drat, that is pretty terrible. I know that happens sometimes in journals, but it sucks when you stumble across it. Germstore posted:There's a more general issue with software when you ask 'why does x feature not exist.' Features don't exist by default. 'Is this feature good' is only the first step. There's also, 'do we have the time,' 'are there other features that are higher priority,' 'is this a feature that only one person wants, one person who may be using it as a talking point and not actually buying FIFA16 either way?' Part of the thing with sports games is that people want it to be as realistic as possible. That's one reason why there's no option for it. Another is that it would be expensive and time consuming to implement. All new player models, animations, stats, making up uniforms and more. Lastly, it would be for a feature that arguably few people are going to use as women's soccer isn't as popular. Games are cash driven and are influenced by what will sell. Integrated soccer would have become not only a reality, but popular as well to see it implemented in a game. If it is a backyard soccer game or something, then sure, why not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:57
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:All the specific criticism of Anita Sarkeesian in this thread seems weak as hell and boils down to: poor color timing, slow release of new videos, and collaborating with a man who posts silly things on his twitter. There are lots of sweeping statements like, "she's just as silly as the people who harass her!" without a lot to substantiate that claim. Personally, I don't even like her videos--they are boring, intro-level feminist critiques. Making any sort of nuanced response to her videos isn't really worth it when you consider that most of the responses are from people who can't even stomach milquetoast freshman arguments. That's why all of the youtube video comments were disabled, because holy poo poo people are dumb and mad as hell
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Okay, you know that your understanding of gamergate is different to other gamergaters', right? Including some in this very thread? For you, it's an explicitly reactionary response to people whose values are counter to yours. It wouldn't matter to you if Sarkeesian released videos every week with perfect white balance and uncrushed blacks, because fundamentally you feel personally threatened when somebody criticises the media you enjoy, or is the 'wrong type' of game consumer. Is it? He basically say - It's beyond one girl or ethics in game journalism, so it's basically a large tent protest like others including myself have said. - He's talked about opposition to SJW call out culture and tactics, which others in the thread and myself have expressed as well. - He has said that Sarkesian is disliked because her video's are poorly produced and opinions are questionable, which others in the thread and myself have expressed. Yet somehow it still has to be a reactionary response, and you have to insist that it has to be because people are criticizing the media we enjoy or are the "wrong type" of game consumer., Like this is a "False cause fallacy", people have listed several reasons for gamergate to exist which are reasonable and are backed up by evidence, and you insist that the real case has to be because we don't want an outgroup like girls in our games. Even though there's a few women who are on the side of gamergate and one of the leading figures is a flamboyantly gay man.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I don't think there's a problem that a game is designed primarily for men, or a magazine designed for primarily women, or a boy band that sings love songs primarily to young girls. The Beatles started off singing love songs primarily to young girls before finding a better purpose. It would be nice to see more ideas that don't cater to characteristics of one specific sex or another, but I don't think it's required of anyone. I think you're missing the point. It's not about specific games being male focused. It's closer to the fact that popular fiction tends to be male focused a lot more than it's female focused, though that's not really what her videos are about. It's more to do with what messages are being sent. The fact that things are male focused only matters as far as it means that men are generally heroes and women are generally not, which is a good example of the kinds of issues we're talking about. A male protagonist doesn't say anything by itself, but within the context of media as a whole, it's part of a lesson that we are taught about what a hero looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Chasterson posted:Probably because it started when some guy publicly posted a diatribe about what a slut his girlfriend was and how her slutyness was ruining games journalism. Yeah and lots of causes started from stupid things. Arguably the environmentalist movement was started by a white con artist pretending to be native american, and hunters who were afraid their kids wouldn't have anything to shoot. So what? Like that's a genetic fallacy, where you judge something from where it came from as opposed to it's merits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2015 04:02
|
|