Archer666 posted:

Goddamn it I'm going to reply this, because I really don't understand this way of thinking. Does it assume that the mystery person not giving her the benefit of the doubt automatically gives it to males? Or that it lumps scepticism together with "Women's ideas were unfairly questioned throughout history"? I'm legit confused.

Hbomberguy posted:

What about the concept of mansplaining confuses you?

A Gnarlacious Bro posted:

The more ya'll post about this the more I like her and think this perspective is super valuable. So thanks!

nine-gear crow posted:

That actually does sound like a great premise for a game. An elaborate trolling simulator built around Hitman's engine would be fantastic.

Procrastinator posted:

DStecks posted:

It is absolutely super loving valuable, which is why I wish she would actually express this perspective instead of just allude to it.

But she won't, because she knows that if she would come outright and say "I don't think it's great that the default form of gameplay is the celebration of violence", it would discredit her in the eyes of a whole lot of people who are otherwise onboard with her 100%. It would make her look like the stereotypical "girl-who-doesn't-like-violent-games", when by all accounts she admittedly does enjoy violent games.

WickedHate posted:

but if she agrees with all that stuff about all violence in video games being bad

Max Wilco posted:

I cannot stand McIntosh. The stuff he's tweeted has seriously pissed me off; from saying that Batman 'doesn't express fear despite Arkham Knight being about fear', to saying that Fallout is 'constructed around some deeply conservative right-wing ideological assumptions' (which totally baffles me), and stuff that only really annoys me specifically.

Spiritus Nox posted:

Another thing worthy of note on the ubiquity of video game violence is that it's kinda-sorta partly endemic-ish to the medium. Computers have a very difficult time representing anything but spatial simulations in a way that is easily understood or learned by humans, and spatial simulations by their nature make it very easy to construct compelling representations of combat or similar conflict and very very difficult to represent more abstract or mental issues. It's easy to teach a computer how to calculate simple jump or bullet physics. It's rather more difficult to teach a computer to love, or to hold a grudge. Campster talked about that at some length waaaaaaay back.

Tim Rogers' 17,000+ word review of Bioshock which Everyone Should Read posted:

Once upon a time, game design genius Clifford “CliffyB” Bleszinski said, in an interview, that because raycasting is such a simple function in 3D simulations, it’s easy to make a game understand when any given point is geometrically aligned with another. Bleszinski said that entertainment experiences, in general, are about reaching out and touching people, and that because of the ease of raycasting and its natural similarity to aiming and pointing a gun, games, as entertainment, are more often than not about “reaching out and touching someone with your gun”.

I believe in Bleszinski (“Cliff”, as he’ll let me call him . . . someday), and I also believe that the abundance of violence in videogames is spillover from the parts of the brain that the original Grand Theft Auto poured lighter fluid on: “here are objects on my screen, and they resemble objects I’ve seen in my real life, and I can do things to them that I’d never do to anyone in the real world.”

What I mean is, games are power fantasies — and it’s easy to make power fantasies, because guns are so powerful, and raycasting is simple, and raycasting is like a gun.

Most likely, the only worthy conclusion here is that when you’ve spent One Hundred Million Dollars building the densest game environment in history, if shooting games are the only ones making billions of dollars, you probably want shooting in your game.

quote:

Chapter Two: Let’s keep talking about the box art.

Hbomberguy posted:

Anita's tweets about Hitman are grasping at an answer to this sort of question a bajillion times harder than the thousands of people who just want to get self-righteously angry at Some Lady's Opinion, defending the 'rights' of a game developer to make violent games as if that's what's at stake here at all.

Cyron posted:

I don't get why people in this thread must act like she is 100% right and anyone who think otherwise is a evil gator.

DStecks posted:

Which are basically exhibits A and B in the case of how shitlords make it impossible to critically engage with Anita's points when she talks about stuff that's in a greyer area than "maybe game women shouldn't exist purely to be sex objects and murder victims". And I'm saying this as somebody who agrees with every single word of Tropes vs. Women in Games.

DStecks posted:

Those are not the words of somebody who "doesn't really care", that's literally first-level GG rhetoric.

Spiritus Nox posted:

Another thing worthy of note on the ubiquity of video game violence is that it's kinda-sorta partly endemic-ish to the medium. Computers have a very difficult time representing anything but spatial simulations in a way that is easily understood or learned by humans, and spatial simulations by their nature make it very easy to construct compelling representations of combat or similar conflict and very very difficult to represent more abstract or mental issues. It's easy to teach a computer how to calculate simple jump or bullet physics. It's rather more difficult to teach a computer to love, or to hold a grudge. Campster talked about that at some length waaaaaaay back.

Cyron posted:

are you sure? this thread ues to be great before it become Cyron blog.

prahanormal posted:

Ftfy

LFK posted:

Yeah, it's a reenforcing cycle.

The people who built the infrastructure valued spatial simulation (because it's super-duper useful for all kinds of Real Job tasks, like engineering and geology) which made the computers good at spatial simulation which starts the whole cycle of using, developing, and improving the spatial simulations.

It's not that it's more difficult to teach a computer to hold a grudge (spatial simulation is so complex that many of us buy an entire mini-computer to put into our computer just to run spatial calculations) it's that grudge-holding-technology has a four-decade lag on raytracing.

LFK posted:

Yeah, it's a reenforcing cycle.

The people who built the infrastructure valued spatial simulation (because it's super-duper useful for all kinds of Real Job tasks, like engineering and geology) which made the computers good at spatial simulation which starts the whole cycle of using, developing, and improving the spatial simulations.

It's not that it's more difficult to teach a computer to hold a grudge (spatial simulation is so complex that many of us buy an entire mini-computer to put into our computer just to run spatial calculations) it's that grudge-holding-technology has a four-decade lag on raytracing.

Jack Gladney posted:

If Brad Jones is depressed he should probably not be watching poo poo like Farmer's Daughters and Batpussy (again). Just hearing them summarized made me cry a little. The 70s were vile.

Brad Jones posted:

State of the Site
Hey everyone! As some of you may now, I've suffered a bit of a heartbreak in the last week. Don't worry don't worry, this isn't going to be me all moping and acting depressed or anything.

A couple days after it happened, I mentioned that I may be taking some time off (excluding the Midnight Screenings). I definitely wasn't in the right frame of mind to do any kind of work those particular days. With that being said, now that time has passed, The Cinema Snob episodes will continue on as usual. Yes, I'm still a bit a of a sad sack, and it's going to take a long while to heal, but I'm at least at a period right now where I have no problem getting back to work.

What I'm going through is a very normal thing to happen in life. It's a kick in the crotch, and when it's incredibly sudden, it's also quite a bit shocking. But there's a lot of people who go through the exact same thing, yet have no choice but to continue on with their day, be it their job, their daily routine, or simply getting out of bed. I should also be able to do my job, my job is very easy. I certainly took a few days for myself last week, and the convention last weekend was a roller coaster of emotions that was very very hard.

Sure, there's going to be days when I just want to sit around the house and do nothing, but for my set days when I have to work, I've got no problem doing my job and continuing to make content for everyone to enjoy. Does that mean that I'm over everything that happened? Lord no! And I probably won't be anytime soon. But there's a God's Not Dead 2 coming out in a couple of weeks, and goddamn it, someone's gotta tackle God's Not Dead on their show!

I've been dealing with depression for a long time, and maybe sometime I'll get a little more into that, but do you know what helps a little with depression? Tequila. No no, not the drink, that's a terrible idea. Tequila & Bonetti. I'm going to get right back into spotlighting more episodes of that very soon.

I've gotten much love and support in the last week, more than I think I've ever gotten in recent memory. Thank you so much for that. You're all incredibly wonderful people, and while I'm going through an extremely emotional rough patch, it's folks like you that make me glad that I do what I do for a living. So here's to healing, good mental health, and making some new content.

Hbomberguy posted:

One person saying "I agree with Anita Sarkeesian 100%" is not equivalent to pretending there's a rule that "people in this thread must act like she is 100% right and anyone who think otherwise is a evil gator."

If DStecks being a bad poster is too much for you you might want to try not making their opinions the basis for how you think about everyone else in the thread.

Jack Gladney posted:

If Brad Jones is depressed he should probably not be watching poo poo like Farmer's Daughters and Batpussy (again). Just hearing them summarized made me cry a little. The 70s were vile.

Max Wilco posted:

Actually, thinking about Dishonored, most stealth games give you the ability to use violence, but also allow you to take a peaceful or non-lethal option, and most of them reward the player for taking that option.

TheMaestroso posted:

I wonder how many games that play with this notion make it easier to be nonlethal than lethal. Ones I'm familiar with generally make it more difficult when opting not to kill (MGS series, for example).