Dapper Dan posted:

Minarchist posted:

I have to lift heavy things at work when a woman with a lot more education than I do asks me to. Do I feel demeaned? No, because I'm physically capable of doing something they are not by virtue of being a man. If they want to take a ton of steroids and hit the gym for 6 hours a day, great! Until then, they'll need to rely on someone who can lift 100 pounds without aid.

Junkfist posted:

Yes.

It's an FMV game. It's videoclips you tie together to tell a story in a couple hours. We've had this since the 90s. It's a fine little game. It's a pretty good story. It can't compare to a more complex game with a comparable narrative.

The differences between games aren't the same as the differences between the differences between movies. The disparity and complexity of the ways they can change are huge.

The internal comparison of games to one another and movies to one another is like movies to one another and books to one another. Games are different from one another in ways movies can't be.

Trabisnikof posted:

But you're getting caught up that because you think and feel something isn't as good, doesn't mean everyone else does! Its an opinion, and this time yours doesn't match everyone else. Your opinion is no more valid about what makes a good game than anyone else.


I think Tales of Maj'Eyal is a better game than Diablo 3, even though we've had rogue-likes since the 90s too.

Junkfist posted:

You can find a straight-to-video B movie more enjoyable than a critically acclaimed movie that sweeps the Oscars.

This is different from saying one is Movie of the Year.

Junkfist posted:

You can find a straight-to-video B movie more enjoyable than a critically acclaimed movie that sweeps the Oscars.

This is different from saying one is Movie of the Year.

Junkfist posted:

Yes.

It's an FMV game. It's videoclips you tie together to tell a story in a couple hours. We've had this since the 90s. It's a fine little game. It's a pretty good story. It can't compare to a more complex game with a comparable narrative.

The differences between games aren't the same as the differences between the differences between movies. The disparity and complexity of the ways they can change are huge.

The internal comparison of games to one another and movies to one another is like movies to one another and books to one another. Games are different from one another in ways movies can't be.

OMG JC a Bomb! posted:

I think the bone of contention isn't that people are liking what other people don't like. It seems to me that the main complaint are publishers giving favorable press to game publishers that are also advertising clients/game designers that are close personal friends outside of work without disclosing their relationship with the people they're writing about.

Personally, I don't think it's worth crusading about since game publications have always been garbage, but whatever.

Obdicut posted:

That is part of it, but there's also the obsession with journalists and commentators who don't do this, like Sarkeesian, as demonstrated by people like you who creepily bring up the job she had at 23 as a way to smear her--and insinuate because she's not matching Machinima's output--a multimillion-dollar company with thousands of contributors.

poptart_fairy posted:

Why do you keep bringing up Sarkeesian when she's not even mentioned in the posts you respond to.

Obdicut posted:

In this case, it's because OMG JC a Bomb! was talking about what the 'bone of contention' was, but I didn't feel it accurately represented what's under contention, especially because he himself posted a lot of posts about how Sarkeesian is Bad.

This is really similar to the answer I gave you last time you asked an almost identical question.

Dapper Dan posted:

poptart_fairy posted:

Have you perhaps considered not everything revolves around Sarkeesian.

poptart_fairy posted:

Have you perhaps considered not everything revolves around Sarkeesian.

Obdicut posted:

I don't think everything does revolve around Sarkeesian, though. That's why I talk about other things as well, like mainstream gaming journalism press.

I think perhaps it'd help if you read what I posted.


Escapism can have a political leaning, yes. Why wouldn't it?

Exmond posted:

Please tell me how Escapism has a political leaning? Is it possible to have an escapism fantasy that has no political leaning?

Exmond posted:

Please tell me how Escapism has a political leaning? Is it possible to have an escapism fantasy that has no political leaning?

Exmond posted:

Edit: Ahh context, hes talking about Batman.. Wait how the heck is batman politically right leaning?

Trabisnikof posted:

But that's just the problem, you think it is a "straight-to-video B movie" and other people think it is a "Movie of the year". Somehow, all of these other people who disagree with you are *wrong* and you are *right* because that's how you feel.


Also, I think you'd find that in movies, there are just as huge gulfs of opinion. Some people would have called Django Unchained a "straight-to-video B movie" and it was in fact, nominated for an academy award for best picture.


You're just not in the majority on this one, it happens. It doesn't mean they're *wrong* or *not gamers* or there is a conspiracy. Just that people found more value in a game than you did. Your identity is not threatened by it.

fatherboxx posted:

Why, because the critic is obliged to honor the numerous invites to press screenings, gifts, bought advertising space and a chance to get a pull quote on the cover?

Obdicut posted:

Okay, but why does that mean a FMV game can't win game of the year? You seem to be saying it can't because it's an FMV, but that's just circular logic.

What if a bunch of other people think it deserves to win game of the year--are you saying you're judging it by objective standards or something?

Junkfist posted:

It is an FMV game.

You have a search box.

You search a term.

Your reward is FMVs.

Once you collect all the FMVs, nothing happens.

It will probably take you under two hours to do this.

That is the game.

The story behind the game is a good murder mystery story.

...

...it should not win GOTY 2015.

quote:

It is in my humble opinion that this game where you search out FMVs in a search box to find keywords to more FMVs for a couple hours poses no existential threat to videogames nor is it the salvation to videogames, but to say this is the most important game of 2015 is silly.

Obdicut posted:

Yes, but this doesn't mean that by being male you're stronger than any woman you meet. If you are 145 pounds and not that fit, I know plenty of women who can easily outcompete you physically. Furthermore, you went beyond that basic physical stuff to talk about vague emotional/mental qualities: do you think sexual dimorphism extends to that, as well?

Exmond posted:

And now maybe we can see why some people have an issue with Mcintosh. Apparently escapism now has a political leaning :P

Edit: Ahh context, hes talking about Batman.. Wait how the heck is batman politically right leaning?

Junkfist posted:

It is an FMV game.

You have a search box.

You search a term.

Your reward is FMVs.

Once you collect all the FMVs, nothing happens.

It will probably take you under two hours to do this.

That is the game.

The story behind the game is a good murder mystery story.

...

...it should not win GOTY 2015.

It is in my humble opinion that this game where you search out FMVs in a search box to find keywords to more FMVs for a couple hours poses no existential threat to videogames nor is it the salvation to videogames, but to say this is the most important game of 2015 is silly.

Junkfist posted:

It is an FMV game.

You have a search box.

You search a term.

Your reward is FMVs.

Once you collect all the FMVs, nothing happens.

It will probably take you under two hours to do this.

That is the game.

The story behind the game is a good murder mystery story.

...

...it should not win GOTY 2015.

It is in my humble opinion that this game where you search out FMVs in a search box to find keywords to more FMVs for a couple hours poses no existential threat to videogames nor is it the salvation to videogames, but to say this is the most important game of 2015 is silly.

Obdicut posted:

This is still circular reasoning. Why do the things you listed above mean it can't be game of the year?

Again, I'm asking why it's silly. What are the criteria you're using for 'game of the year'?

Since 'game of the year' is inherently subjective, just like 'oscar winner', I don't get why anyone says it 'should' or 'shouldn't' win.

Cingulate posted:

...

This is not to say that an extremely strong woman wouldn't be stronger than many men, but it does mean that if you know a lot of women who could outmuscle a 145lbs man, you know a lot of extraordinary women.

Junkfist posted:

Part of what would make a game GOTY in 2015 would have to be gameplay, which this particular FMV game and practically any FMV games have barely any of.

To make this clear so the claim of circular reasoning doesn't circle back again: Yes, I am making a normative, nigh categorical statement about purestrain FMV games in the year of our lord 2015 as they pertain to their contention as a "Game of the Year" candidate.

Archer666 posted:

Everything can have a political meaning, but you always have the choice of ignoring it. There's nothing wrong with enjoying something and letting it politics float in the wind.

Obdicut posted:

Okay, what about people who disagree that gameplay is a part, or an overwhelming part, or whatever, of what makes a game 2015--what about people who say that making something that challenges the boundaries of what a 'game' is is better than a game that is traditional but has great gameplay?

Are you saying they're objectively wrong?

Junkfist posted:

Eliminate "traditional but" and replace it with "Innovative and".

Then, Yes.

Obdicut posted:

Alright, well sorry to break it to you but your opinion is actually subjective, rather than objective.

Archer666 posted:

Everything can have a political meaning, but you always have the choice of ignoring it. There's nothing wrong with enjoying something and letting it politics float in the wind.

poptart_fairy posted:

If it's all subjective why have you pushed so hard to disagree with what he says rather than just letting it go.

Obdicut posted:

Well, if you had an escapist fantasy where you lived in a world where women all had to do what men said, then that'd have a rather obvious political leaning. And yes, it's possible for escapism to have no political leaning. McIntosh was talking about a particular kind of escapist fantasy, though, not making a general comment about all escapism.

Junkfist posted:

If there is no gameplay it is literally, categorically, definitively not a game.

It's not.

You cannot say "gameplay is not a part of the game".

This is "married bachelor" levels of not making sense.

If there is no gameplay you have, at best, a screensaver.

Obdicut posted:

In many cases, the political aspect is the escapist part, though. It says "Imagine the world was like this".

But when it's not, whether it's 'wrong' to enjoy is a kind of non-useful judgement. But being aware of the political message or assumptions behind something even if you also just enjoy it seems better than just pretending the political stuff isn't there at all.

I'm off to a BBQ.

Trabisnikof posted:

Oh so now you're arguing that is isn't even a game?

Obdicut posted:

Okay, what about people who disagree that gameplay is a part, or an overwhelming part, or whatever, of what makes a game 2015--what about people who say that making something that challenges the boundaries of what a 'game' is is better than a game that is traditional but has great gameplay?

Are you saying they're objectively wrong?

Archer666 posted:

Not really. You can make everything political if you think about it long enough, I guess. Doesn't mean you should or its what the developers intended. I'm just saying, maybe people sometimes overthink these things.

Unless the political themes of Left for Dead, DOOM or Tetris are really that interesting to you.

Cingulate posted:

I looked up the first three studies estimating lean body (~muscle) mass in men and women I could find, and roughly calculated effect sizes.

In this one, the difference in women vs. men was Cohen's d ~2.6.
In this one, ~6.1.
In this one, ~3.7.
(For comparison, differences in math ability and IQ are Cohen's d ~0.2.)

You can look up what that translates to here. Well, you could, if this difference was not off the charts. If you pick a random man and a random woman, the probability that the man is stronger than the woman is >.95%.

"Stronger" here means raw muscle mass, but men and women slightly differ in Maximum Volatile Contraction; men are a bit better at recruiting their muscle mass. (Women are a bit more fatigue resistant, proportionally speaking.)
Training would exaggerate these differences, as men respond much better to training.

This is not to say that an extremely strong woman wouldn't be stronger than many men, but it does mean that if you know a lot of women who could outmuscle a 145lbs man, you know a lot of extraordinary women.