|
Archer666 posted:There's a difference, but I think you're overreacting. Its not anymore sexist than the camera focusing on a guys sweet, sculpted back muscles and finely toned legs. They're just markers of attractiveness. I don't feel there's anything inherently wrong with that. What's your threshold for overreaction? I know nothing about video games, but I'm always surprised at the overwhelming number of examples in the Feminist Frequency videos. Yet the claims are always mild and well established. Is it the idea of acknowledging sexism in video games that makes you uncomfortable? The poo poo in videos like that one comes off as shocking to somebody unfamiliar with video games.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Archer666 posted:Or they just wanted to make an attractive protagonist. Attractive != overtly sexy. Jade from BG&E is attractive, but not sexualized. Archer666 posted:Its not anymore sexist than the camera focusing on a guys sweet, sculpted back muscles and finely toned legs. That doesn't happen, which if you had watched the video you'd know was the point of it. Sexy female PCs are the norm. Sexy male PCs are the exception. Because of sexism. This is not loving rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
John Murdoch posted:It's like $35~ just for all the characters (presumably it will be ever so slightly cheaper if/when they bundle the second wave or bundle them all together). Add another $11~ if you want the stages. Maybe I'm just spoiled by PC gaming when it comes to DLC pricing, but 75% of the box price seems a bit steep. 35 bux for quite a few characters is pretty reasonable to me when I've seen how much individual fighters or even the just costumes can cost in other fighting games. The stages you can really take or leave depending on your group of friends and depending on how competitive they are. And you mention DLC on PC but uh. You sure things are any more reasonable on there? Tracula fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What's your threshold for overreaction? I know nothing about video games, but I'm always surprised at the overwhelming number of examples in the Feminist Frequency videos. Yet the claims are always mild and well established. Is it the idea of acknowledging sexism in video games that makes you uncomfortable? The poo poo in videos like that one comes off as shocking to somebody unfamiliar with video games. What is your other Source of knowledge in the industry. because if it just in this thred I can understand since all you know about gaming is tropes VS woman, gamergate, and moviebob, and that is like the worst things about gaming and I am sorry about that. as for the overburden of examples, well right now we are improving this but still have a long way to go. last year E3 was mush better in showing more female heros that are not sex robots to the most part. I know it's token but antia is getting though to more devs then gamergate. Cyron fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:What's your threshold for overreaction? I know nothing about video games, but I'm always surprised at the overwhelming number of examples in the Feminist Frequency videos. Yet the claims are always mild and well established. Is it the idea of acknowledging sexism in video games that makes you uncomfortable? The poo poo in videos like that one comes off as shocking to somebody unfamiliar with video games. It's not that it makes me uncomfortable. Why would it? It's more that I disagree with the notion that all of gaming is problematic based on a small pool of video games that she's chosen. Also I disagree with her opinions that staring at your characters rear end dehumanizes them. DStecks posted:Attractive != overtly sexy. Jade from BG&E is attractive, but not sexualized. Being attractive can also mean overtly sexy, in my opinion. Like, attractiveness is part of sexy. Raiden is attractive, and sexualized. DStecks posted:That doesn't happen, which if you had watched the video you'd know was the point of it. Sexy female PCs are the norm. Sexy male PCs are the exception. Because of sexism. This is not loving rocket science. It... does though? There are games in which that happens. But I do agree with you that games need more variety, I stated as much. Though I do not think sexy women PCs are caused by "Sexism" I.E. developers sitting down and going "Lets gently caress over women by showing men costant lady rear end". The worst I could say about this is "unintentional sexism", because sex sells and nerds will always spend more money on sexual stuff. See: Japan feeding games to the otaku population and making cash out of scantly dressed variation figurines of their characters. Or the waifu and husbando games.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:Being attractive can also mean overtly sexy, in my opinion. Like, attractiveness is part of sexy. Raiden is attractive, and sexualized. You're now being willfully ignorant. I'm probably not going to respond to any more of your posts after this, because it's very clear that either you did not watch the video or refuse to understand it because you've made up your mind that sexy video game ladies are great and there's nothing wrong with them at all. Archer666 posted:It... does though? There are games in which that happens. Please name for me a video game not in the Metal Gear franchise which openly ogles its male player character. Archer666 posted:But I do agree with you that games need more variety, I stated as much. Though I do not think sexy women PCs are caused by "Sexism" I.E. developers sitting down and going "Lets gently caress over women by showing men costant lady rear end". The worst I could say about this is "unintentional sexism", because sex sells and nerds will always spend more money on sexual stuff. See: Japan feeding games to the otaku population and making cash out of scantly dressed variation figurines of their characters. Or the waifu and husbando games. Sexism doesn't mean hatred of women, it means prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes based on sex.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
DStecks posted:You're now being willfully ignorant. I'm probably not going to respond to any more of your posts after this, because it's very clear that either you did not watch the video or refuse to understand it because you've made up your mind that sexy video game ladies are great and there's nothing wrong with them at all. oh gently caress off. god forbid anyone disagree with antia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Cyron posted:oh gently caress off. god forbid anyone disagree with antia. Jonathan Swift posted:When a true genius appears in the world, you may know [her] by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against [her].
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
your a dumb gently caress who give a artistic creep money to spite gamergate, your about as dumb as me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
DStecks posted:
Hmm, that's already like 6 games I can't name. Well, I do like it when boys make me jump through hoops~ Lets see. Tera has a whole bunch of twinks which you constantly watch from behind and who you can zoom in quite close, if I recall correctly. Obvious joke answer would be Cho Aniki or any amount of Bara/Yaoi games. But yeah, not 3rd person. DStecks posted:Sexism doesn't mean hatred of women, it means prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes based on sex. And once again, I disagree that sexism was the original intent of any developer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:Hmm, that's already like 6 games I can't name. Well, I do like it when boys make me jump through hoops~ Ignore DStecks, he is a rear end in a top hat who attacks anyone who slightly disagree with him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:It's not that it makes me uncomfortable. Why would it? It's more that I disagree with the notion that all of gaming is problematic based on a small pool of video games that she's chosen. Also I disagree with her opinions that staring at your characters rear end dehumanizes them. Your responses do seem a little defensive at times. Is gaming different from video games? Nobody said that all of gaming is problematic. The claim is that many video games present female characters as sexual objects while very few present male characters as sexual objects, and that there are comparatively few video games that do not present female characters as sexualized objects. How do you get from that to the claim that all gaming is problematic?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Your responses do seem a little defensive at times. Is gaming different from video games? Nobody said that all of gaming is problematic. The claim is that many video games present female characters as sexual objects while very few present male characters as sexual objects, and that there are comparatively few video games that do not present female characters as sexualized objects. People really assume too mush when it comes to the subject, I want to say it a hyperbolic idea from the gamer side where someone says they want a female charater to not be eye candy they assume they want all woman in games to be in baggy brown jump suites or something. real like example is the new look for Sylvanas Windrunner in the new wow xpack where her middrift is covered and people freaked out that blizzard caved to the SJW's. when in reality she is just going to play a huge role in the new story and her character fears death.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
This is kind of an unpleasant derail, so I just want to say I'm worried Lupa is making me an unironic Baywatch fan, or at the very least, an unironic Billy Warlock fan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Cyron posted:Ignore DStecks, he is a rear end in a top hat who attacks anyone who slightly disagree with him. I disagreed with him fairly significantly just a page or two ago and he didn't attack me. Also Archer no one is saying that developers are outright going "I think women are just sexual objects and so I am going to show that through my game". Unintentional sexism, as you described it, brought about through industry norms is still just as important to fight against. More even, maybe, since it's the sort that people are by definition less likely to be aware that they are doing because it isn't consciously decided, so it is more likely to go unnoticed by those doing it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
I am getting really into Baywatch when it's digested that way. All these years I had no idea how insane it was. I thought it was just, like, kids get stuck in a riptide, kids get stuck in an underwater cave, kids get stranded on a barge. What I really want to know though: when that mad bomber knocked out Pamela Anderson and put a bomb on her boat, why did he also tie her up? That seems like an either/or case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:I am getting really into Baywatch when it's digested that way. All these years I had no idea how insane it was. I thought it was just, like, kids get stuck in a riptide, kids get stuck in an underwater cave, kids get stranded on a barge. Because the mod bomber is more or less Snidely Whiplash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Jack Gladney posted:Your responses do seem a little defensive at times. Is gaming different from video games? Nobody said that all of gaming is problematic. The claim is that many video games present female characters as sexual objects while very few present male characters as sexual objects, and that there are comparatively few video games that do not present female characters as sexualized objects. Gaming = video games. While I realize that the term "gaming" encompasses more than just video games, in my language its primary meaning is "to play video games". Pardon for the mistake. And you're right, I was being too hyperbolic jumping from "many" to "all". But still, I stand by my point. She picks from too small a pool to make such a claim. She took 37 games, from 1996 to 2016, as references in this episode. Which is a drop in a bucket. Especially with how popular third person games are these days. Look, I'll call it quits now. I didn't mean to derail this thread this badly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Cyron posted:your a dumb gently caress who give a artistic creep money to spite gamergate, your about as dumb as me. What sort of idiot stalking are you up to son? Besides weren't you the one who vowed not to post in these threads anymore?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:What sort of idiot stalking are you up to son? You call me a stalker but brought up a post i made a year ago? Did you stole my dirty socks too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
WHERE'S THE BEST OF 2015 LIST, TODD
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Cyron posted:your a dumb gently caress who give a artistic creep money to spite gamergate, your about as dumb as me. Cyron posted:People really assume too mush when it comes to the subject, I want to say it a hyperbolic idea from the gamer side where someone says they want a female charater to not be eye candy they assume they want all woman in games to be in baggy brown jump suites or something. real like example is the new look for Sylvanas Windrunner in the new wow xpack where her middrift is covered and people freaked out that blizzard caved to the SJW's. when in reality she is just going to play a huge role in the new story and her character fears death. Cyron posted:You call me a stalker but brought up a post i made a year ago? Did you stole my dirty socks too. Did I strike a nerve?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Did I strike a nerve? What does the 2nd and 3rd post have to do with the first none of that was targeted to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Oh look, another incoherent Cyron flameout. Been a while since we had one of those. Not entirely sure what's going on in your life that makes you do these on the regular, but it doesn't seem healthy and you might want to go about fixing it. So, Internet criticism?
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Dittoing that Baywatching is making me want to watch Baywatch unironicly more and more. I don't think it really got shown over here in the UK and so we only have references to it in other shows to base our perceptions of it on, which all point to "Sexy people running in slow motion" than "Utter batshit insanity".
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
DStecks posted:
Not actually arguing the point but stating an anecdote, I streamed some Resident Evil 5 with some friends a few years back and one of them could not stop staring at Chris' buns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:Gaming = video games. While I realize that the term "gaming" encompasses more than just video games, in my language its primary meaning is "to play video games". Pardon for the mistake. There are far too many games to make a representative sample in a video, though. There are far too many games to even play enough to list a representative sample. I haven't seen the most recent episode, but while I've found a handful of Anita's claims specious or a couple examples cherrypicked, by and large they're pointing out valid concerns that are mostly prevalent in AAA games (which is where most of her examples come from). If you want to, feel free to substitute the somewhat hyperbolic "games are sexist" with "a somewhat obnoxiously large contingent of mainstream popular games have sexist elements", which is what she seems to actually mean.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
SteelMentor posted:Dittoing that Baywatching is making me want to watch Baywatch unironicly more and more. I don't think it really got shown over here in the UK and so we only have references to it in other shows to base our perceptions of it on, which all point to "Sexy people running in slow motion" than "Utter batshit insanity". Nah, Baywatch was a pretty big deal here in the UK too, I know because I made a point of not watching it when it was on, (ITV I think). I don't think it was repeated though, unless on a cable channel. But then thats probably true of everywhere except Germany, thanks to Hasselmania. Hence it being the only country to release all the DVD's. I'd say it was a flash in the pan, but I don't think 11+ years counts as a flash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
This video is a really good breakdown of the side quest flexibility of Fallout: New Vegas. It really shows how much of a step backwards Fallout 4 was in terms of variety and how absolutely limiting your options were in that game (three ways to say yes and one way to get more caps).
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Nah, Baywatch was a pretty big deal here in the UK too, I know because I made a point of not watching it when it was on, (ITV I think). I don't think it was repeated though, unless on a cable channel. But then thats probably true of everywhere except Germany, thanks to Hasselmania. Hence it being the only country to release all the DVD's. I'd say it was a flash in the pan, but I don't think 11+ years counts as a flash. It was the most watched show in the world, so it was kind of hard to escape for a decade, but yeah it doesn't get a lot of reruns. Only time I could ever recall seeing it on TV in recent times was when they were doing the David Hasselhoff Roast on Comedy Central and it was being aired ironically. If any of y'all are interested in watching some of the show without the commentary, I highly recommend The Runaways from season 5. My favorite episode, and it features Little Richard!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
In the UK, I think Baywatch airs re-runs on a channel that only shows TV movies and straight to DVD films starring Lance Henriksen. It was big in the UK - they even had toys at Burger King - but not as huge as it was in other countries. EDIT: According to an article I dug up, ITV (the second main broadcaster in the country) decided to help co-fund the show after it got cancelled. Though they don't state if that's the season one cancellation, or the Baywatch Hawaii reshuffle? Gregory Alan Williams seems like the best thing in the show - ironically he's in Terminator Genysis, and Paramount have just announced that the sequel to that has been shelved, and its release date given to....the Baywatch film! OldMemes fucked around with this message at 23:01 on Jan 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
SteelMentor posted:Dittoing that Baywatching is making me want to watch Baywatch unironicly more and more. I don't think it really got shown over here in the UK and so we only have references to it in other shows to base our perceptions of it on, which all point to "Sexy people running in slow motion" than "Utter batshit insanity". Nah that's our touchstone for the show too. I think a lot of people watched the show, but they only watched it now and then, and rewatched tape versions for about three to five minutes if you catch my drift.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Never stop doing Baywatching. I'm hopeful for the upcoming movie: if it's half as stupid as the show, it should be fun times.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
Jsor posted:It's actually kind of weird to me that people haven't experimented more with the concept of CGI's unreality. There are a lot of extremely bizarre rendering bugs I've seen that, if you could reproduce them, you could use for some great experimental stuff. Once I rendered an object with some subtly sketchy parameters, and as you rotated the camera it just warped and had black triangles spiking at odd directions. I know that's not entirely sufficient for the type of experimentation Kyle meant, but you can get some really interesting effects by intentionally screwing up shaders and other things. Probably one of the most fun examples of this is Simon Fransman's Jam of the Week series, where he combines electronic light jazz with horrific cgi glitchpeople. Jack Gladney posted:I am getting really into Baywatch when it's digested that way. All these years I had no idea how insane it was. I thought it was just, like, kids get stuck in a riptide, kids get stuck in an underwater cave, kids get stranded on a barge. Yeah, I assumed it'd just be people running on the beach in slow mo with boobs, and then like....I dunno, someone gets caught in a rip and rescued. I had no idea how insane it was. Not sure if it was much of a thing here in Australia? I wasn't really alive/old enough to remember the heyday of it. Also OMG the movie - hopefully Zac Efron plays a weenie Eddie character and cuts his finger on his own face, or falls off the Death Pier or something. And Dwayne the Rock Johnson. Amazing. Just as an aside note - why *do* Germans love David Hasselhoff? I can understand why Brits love Neighbours, or Americans love Steve Irwin, although I can't say I care for either of those things, but what was it about Hasselhoff? Apparently he played at the Berlin Wall in 1989... Infamous Sphere fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Jan 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Cyriak so far is one of the few people I know who reulgarly uses the uncomfortable feelings associated with bad cgi with positive results. Other than him I tend to have trouble thinking of people who can make the use of cgi's otherwordlyness to full effect, since most of my time with CGI is dollar store SCI FY horror flicks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Annointed posted:Cyriak so far is one of the few people I know who reulgarly uses the uncomfortable feelings associated with bad cgi with positive results. Other than him I tend to have trouble thinking of people who can make the use of cgi's otherwordlyness to full effect, since most of my time with CGI is dollar store SCI FY horror flicks. I'm not sure Cyriak NEEDS bad CGI to make people uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:Never stop doing Baywatching. May 19, 2017, save the date. What I really want is a two hour movie of Dwayne Johnson and Mitch trying to get the most saves.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:21
|
|
wins.
|
I want random Knight Templars in multiple background shots, never explained, as a reference to Baywatch Nights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
Puppy Time posted:I'm not sure Cyriak NEEDS bad CGI to make people uncomfortable. He once did it by just using a photo of his own face. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAvS1ndtEKg
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
There is going to be another uncencered cinema snob DVD, featuring a re-review of bat pussy. http://www.thecinemasnob.com/the-cinema-snob/a-short-look-at-bat-pussy
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2016 02:13
|
|