Just goes to show that if you do your research and apply it properly, you'll get results. Kudos to LEGO, even though I doubt profits from that line will be dependable.
Err I guess I don't know? The first half of your your hypothetical seems to be a summary of the situation and then it ends in a gender utopia where sexist products don't sell?
I assumed you just didn't know this product launch was a success which is why I linked the article...
Err I guess I don't know? The first half of your your hypothetical seems to be a summary of the situation and then it ends in a gender utopia where sexist products don't sell?
You're kinda right. It was indeed a hypothetical based on the few previous posts mentioning that Lego did try to market to girls and failed, both exposing Lego's poor strategy and the stimulation of sexism debate. My little story was simply to show how through interpellation Lego (and us as a society) could end up making a poor product based on both simultaneously correct and false impressions of what each gender wants. But I gotta say it doesn't sound like any utopia to me...
So no, I did not know that Lego at some point managed to sell it successfully. It's especially interesting since as you say the product does look like the very thing we're all arguing about. My confusion was simply: Did Lego fail or not? Was Lego sexist or not?
Err I guess I don't know? The first half of your your hypothetical seems to be a summary of the situation and then it ends in a gender utopia where sexist products don't sell?
I assumed you just didn't know this product launch was a success which is why I linked the article...
quite the opposite is hwo i understand it, lego always sold to boys because it was marketed to boys so it was genderspecific, now that they do pink lego for girls just proves his point.
The question is this: If LEGO does this will their sales actually improve? Because if all doing this does is alienate their male audience while girls resume their state of continuous disinterest what have they really accomplished here other than making less offensive commercials? You don't solve social problems by making products people don't want.
This has nothing to do with whether their sales improve. This has to do with whether it's offensive. If all they achieve through not being offensive is to not be offensive, and the problem people had was that Lego were being offensive, then it's a total success. Anita didn't make that video because she wants to help Lego become squillionaires.
Take Left 4 Dead for example. Zoey looks like a normal girl. She speaks like a normal girl. Sure, there's only one girl out of four so you could say it's got the Smurfette thing, but you never feel like she's any less of a character than the others. It's fine.
I'm sure that Valve would have made more money if they'd made her look like this:
Not just because that's totally hot, but because there's also the feminist backlash media you can count on, which helps drive sales.
I'm sure they would have made more money. And I'm also sure that at some point during development, someone at Valve suggested they make her sexier. And I'm glad that somebody else said, "No, we're not making a game like that. We don't make games like that." It makes me happy that, knowing game development culture, this surely happened... and that what I consider to be the right decision was made, regardless of how it might affect the bottom line.
Incidentally, what makes you think that Lego not selling sexist toys for girls would alienate their male audience. Do you think that boys around the world became more confident in Lego as a manufacturer when the new girl line came out?
This has nothing to do with whether their sales improve.
This has everything to do with whether or not it will make their products sell better because that's the whole point of what they're trying to accomplish with these shitty products! To get girls interested in LEGOs!
This has to do with whether it's offensive. If all they achieve through not being offensive is to not be offensive, and the problem people had was that Lego were being offensive, then it's a total success.
Are you kidding me man? Should we eliminate everything everybody finds offensive or just the stuff you find offensive? Do you even see the problem with this thinking?
Also do you seriously believe Anita's goal in these videos is to get rid of offensive stuff? Because here I thought it was to promote more diverse products that don't tunnel children into gender roles.
@Snacuum: I definitely agree there's no question it's sexist because it's blatantly reinforcing gender stereotypes. Its success is disappointing but given the amount of research they sunk into it... kind of unsurprising.
Their older products had other problems, plus some of them were just terrible toys to begin with (clikits???)
If Anita kept to her shenanigans about Lego, Pink clothes and other random stuff which she doesn't read the history about in her videos on her channel intact, there would have much less whiplash on her, but from the following interview, it looks like the people who donated money have essentially burnt it at the end of the day, it's not like your local hospital for burnt victims could have used the spare cash:
You know, if Anita had half a mind on 'making things work' as opposed to being the prissy little princess who has a loud voice, she would have instead created her own game, with a group of passionate people to 'show' what she thinks is a real game character.
Even something basic as a puzzle or side-scroller, where passion was the forefront, and not the recess pit, but hey, 150K is great cash to pocket on while you print badges and stickers from you local cheap printers at college.
I mean for Family's and Squid Scrotum sake! She called Zia from Bastion, the outsider girl who had more personality then "The Kid", the "Female"...Zia was an important character, and you got a piece of her mind several time, how does that put her in the position of the 'Female'? What about the Squirt or the evil foreigner while at it?
she should buy $150k worth of shares in whatever video game studio, and then as a major shareholder, dictate the things she wants in their next game, and then we can all watch them go bankrupt together...
maybe then someone will say "oh... maybe that WASN'T the right way to go about this"?
This has nothing to do with whether their sales improve. This has to do with whether it's offensive.
If sales improve, then it's not all that offensive is it? It's just offensive to a subset of people who aren't a target audience in the first place. And if it's sanitized to cater to their specific outrage-fueld needs, then the product will bomb into oblivion.
Take Left 4 Dead for example. Zoey looks like a normal girl. She speaks like a normal girl. Sure, there's only one girl out of four so you could say it's got the Smurfette thing, but you never feel like she's any less of a character than the others. It's fine.
She does, but it's again not true that they didn't try to make her sexy, they just did it tastefully.
And the move from portal 1 chell to portal 2:
Both chell and Zoey are intended to look very physically attractive, they've got the personality to back it up though, and that should be the focus on what makes them great.
left 4 dead 2, bonus points for scoring a wide arrange of different characters, but once again, attractive female sporting jewelry and full on makeup:
But again: I'll use the makeup argument, she's wearing makeup and have picked eyebrows in a post apocalyptic scenario, it rests on our expectations that women should be working on their exterior by default, and that by not applying it they'll very truly feel ugly.
It's a huge industry driven by money and actively working to make women feel bad for not wearing it, and feel good by wearing it, it's an industry that does their research through animal experiments (without the awesome medicines as a result).
I don't mind the whole makeup world we've built up, it's been around for ages, but I also don't see it as any better than what the toys industry is doing for equality.
I'm not looking to make any feminists cause any less, I don't think it's against anyone to choose to wear makeup and it's not going to make them any less a feminist, but they're still supporting it, and valve is still supporting it while we praise them for having proper characters.
Are valves female characters great characters? yes. Are they completely free from issues that probably does harm to females in the big broad sense? nope.
i kind of thought it was to do with the fact that the zombie apocolypse happened when they were out doing other things. Like how Louis looked like he had come straight from the office. So I kind of expect they wouldnt' be wearing they're survival gear they keep at home just in case. I would of thought she'd probably find the time to at least take the ear rings off though. More to the point though has there ever been a lead character in any game thats been truly unattractive? male or female? its true theres a lot more 'ugly' guys in holywood than 'ugly' women. But the roles they get given are usually the bad guys (usually the bumbling sidekick of the badguy). Heroes are almost always beautiful, no matter what there sex, race or background is
i kind of thought it was to do with the fact that the zombie apocolypse happened when they were out doing other things. Like how Louis looked like he had come straight from the office. So I kind of expect they wouldnt' be wearing they're survival gear they keep at home just in case. I would of thought she'd probably find the time to at least take the ear rings off though. More to the point though has there ever been a lead character in any game thats been truly unattractive? male or female? its true theres a lot more 'ugly' guys in holywood than 'ugly' women. But the roles they get given are usually the bad guys (usually the bumbling sidekick of the badguy). Heroes are almost always beautiful, no matter what there sex, race or background is
Makeup that stays intact for more than a day is one of the most longed for breakthroughs in science :P, it could be possible the zombie apocalypse just happened that morning, but makeup doesn't stay THAT on for long, nor is it a good idea for your eyes to sleep with it on.
Doesn't count as mentioned before in this thread; Mario's design largely conforms to strict requirements of antiquated hardware. He's actually been growing taller and less ugly over time.
she should buy $150k worth of shares in whatever video game studio, and then as a major shareholder, dictate the things she wants in their next game, and then we can all watch them go bankrupt together...
maybe then someone will say "oh... maybe that WASN'T the right way to go about this"?
Wow, what a thread. Very thought provoking to say the least. I read every comment, and it took me about 3 hours to get through it all. I must say, this is a very very complicated subject. I just want to post my thoughts on the videos themselves, and the way she chooses to communicate with the audience.
I personally did not like her delivery of the message. Right off the bat, you are hit with the splash screen with the word "Bitch Media". Yes, it's just a word, but it's the first thing you see... so it colours your experience.
Secondly, she sounds condescending and annoyed, and I just don't think that is an effective way to communicate for any human being. I understand that these are issues that are important to her (and the obviously bother her) but the way she phrases some things are very offensive to writers and artists. Kind of like when you read gaming forums or reviews, and someone says "omg problem x is so stupid, how could they have possibly thought this was a good idea" or "how could the game be shipped with problem x! obviously studio x is filled with a bunch of idiots!". Media creation is not a simple task. Writing complex, interesting characters is not easy. It is difficult to tell a story in a video game format. We are still discovering new and better ways to do that, and I think that is at least a part of the problem. To be clear, I'm not saying that these tropes should get a free pass, just saying that game development is still growing and learning at a rapid pace, and that COULD be PART of the problem.
The last main thought I had about her videos is that they did not seem thoroughly researched. As Pseudobug pointed out very early in this thread, the Big Barda example that she used was not valid. Yes, this is just one example, but it's a small video where this is one of the main examples... And you are telling me this is being used in universities and schools? Yikes. Come on, give me FACTS, DATA, ACTUAL RESEARCH. In her videos, she makes very bold statements, and backs them up with terms like "I feel..." and "a lot". This is not acceptable to me, as she presents her findings as facts.
Overall, I wanted to agree with her. I wanted to be on her side. I think she is bringing up some valid problems (I disagree with a few of her videos, but to explain why would be another mini essay for each video). It is her delivery of these arguments and ideas that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I will comment on the kickstarter and why I disagree with some of her points, but that will be later. I mostly just want to brain dump a bit, as I've been thinking about this a lot since I started reading the thread.
It would be good to go into detail of the psychological/sociological human nature and its approach to excess. Just saying that video games revel in excess is not enough, we need 'define' excess and we to explore why games (or more appropriately - players) grapple with it so successfully. Interactivity definitely plays a much more important role than it seems people want to admit.
You know, if Anita had half a mind on 'making things work' as opposed to being the prissy little princess who has a loud voice, she would have instead created her own game, with a group of passionate people to 'show' what she thinks is a real game character.
I know you're probably sick of the whole argument but I hope you realise that your 'SIGH' is just as poor communication and contribution to this discussion as what made this a problem in society.
Snac, I'm not sure if this can even be done. It's a bit like saying that we should be a able to give a formula for what is a good book, and what isn't...
In that regard I think what Yahtzee is touching on is that such things are very, very subtle and fragile and hard to balance. (in passing : subtlety and balance are things that the Kickstarter Tropes girl seems to be totally lacking, and that's what annoys me about her mostly. She's just not a good critic, plain and simple.)
Great games can be made from excess (Shadow of The Colossus anyone ? Bayonetta? and so on) while others just work better when nicely put together within strong and rather abstract constraints (Left for Dead, Portal, Minecraft ...)
I have the feeling that excess (and tropes, and so on) are mostly a question of too many cooks in the kitchen really. I could bet that when working on Mario Galaxy, Miyamoto was dedicating himself to designing cool gravity/planet based puzzles and platform segments - not to making the scope of this game "bigger" than his previous ones... as a matter of fact, as the talented designer he is I honestly think he doesn't care one bit about that kind of stuff.
Well when I meant 'define' excess I meant in the scope of exploring and studying the issue. I agree that such things can't be completely pinned down, but I do think giving it a definition for the sake of being sure how much is 'too much' or 'too little' as a study of how it affects different experiences for players.
What I essentially meant is that I see so many people who study games/media focus on what "games are doing" "what games are saying" etc. That works well for books and movies and other non-interactive media but I believe it is short-sighted in the case of games. Yes developers do but in excess for the sake of attracting sales but it is of my opinion that developers are not solely contributing.
Everyone is happy to say what games are doing 'wrong' in the greater society but never admits that the games can't do anything without their players. Watching or reading about a guy taking down a massive giant is pretty spectacular, but doing it yourself?
Disclaimer: Yes this argument sort of ran in circles... I just am totally over-interested in the roots of cause.
Oh I think I see what you are saying - putting things in the perspective of games as ... games, and not just as some kind of yet another story-telling medium ? Because yeah, I agree : movies and books (mostly) tell stories, but even tho games sur can tell stories too that's not their main purpose ...
(hope I am following you properly!)
That's actually an interesting way to look at this trope thing. The Bayonetta character is, again a fantastic example. She totally fits the gameplay of the game, it's an awesome fun package ... but the Trope Girl criticizes it because, of course, she's not a gamer and most likely sees little value in the incredibly fluid (and sexy!) gameplay of the game, which totally goes hand in hand with the character. Same with the original Tomb Raider design - she's a beautiful gymnast doing backflips over ancient ruins. In that regard she looks exactly like what she is supposed to look like! Even the leotard she wears is just like a gymnast outfit.
Yes Pior you are getting it. Although I will elaborate further:
Games can indeed tell stories, and they can function as pure gameplay that people actually play or interact with (play being a concept that is constantly studied as it goes much further than what we instantly understand it as)
However games can only be considered as a media by comparison to other forms of media. These other forms have been studied extensively and can easily be analysed in terms of their content, message, and greater meaning. But this works less capably for games since they are young as a storytelling medium and factor in a completely new variable that changes the meaning and experience both objectively and subjectively: interaction.
Interaction is impossible without a player. They are the tool by which interactivity communicates, the audience is exclusive to the player and no longer shown, but now in conversation with the game. A movie will still play without an audience, a book will still contain words, but a game practically ceases to exist without somebody to play it. Chess is a brilliant game, but it's brilliance becomes infinite when each players (and possibly spectators) experience becomes a part of its greater meaning.
So it becomes an even greater task to understand how modern games work as a media when it heaps all of the elements of previous media, with stories to tell, moving music and spectacular visuals AND THEN ADDS, choice, ownership, creativity, strategy, consequence and so many more of the things we grapple with in real life.
Stories held up a mirror to society so that we could better understand ourselves. Games and play allow ourselves to make those stories.
Henry Ford once said something along the lines of
"You can have the car in any colour as long as it's black."
There was probably somebody who was upset with all the black cars in the street, and blamed him for socially manipulating peoples choices, forgetting why at all everyone wanted cars so badly in the first place.
And so with games, we can spend forever complaining about how they make another Call of Duty (and that's valid, we should always call for more variety) but there are millions of players who can care for nothing more than another explosion filled, simple gameplay shooter that puts the power in their hands and gives them an experience that means far and beyond a lot more to them than any movie or book can muster.
edit: many people will probably take this as meaning that in terms of this sexism debate, I'm saying that the player is sexist and the developer is not. This is not what I'm saying. Sexism is such a larger concept of human psychology and sociology than fits into any medium. What games say to their players is important and plays a big role in the experiences we have, my point was that it's always a conversation and not just a telling.
I haven't been following this thread for a while, but since she has been making the front pages here in Toronto today, I thought I'd throw out another article here:
The article is essentially about a new game created in which the player can violently beat up Anita Sarkeesian. She then criticized the game on Twitter, which apparently led to a whole new slew of rape and death threats.
If nothing else, I find it interesting just how much attention all this is getting, including all the Media attention now. Even though I didn't agree with many of her points, I think after this strong of a reaction, it's clear there IS something to consider to her words and what she is trying to make people more aware of.
It's more of a case of consistently inciting this kind of behaviour (possibly intentionally). If she ignored the negative comments (or just treated them in a more appropriate and professional manner), they wouldn't tirelessly persist.
I haven't been following this thread for a while, but since she has been making the front pages here in Toronto today, I thought I'd throw out another article here:
The article is essentially about a new game created in which the player can violently beat up Anita Sarkeesian. She then criticized the game on Twitter, which apparently led to a whole new slew of rape and death threats.
If nothing else, I find it interesting just how much attention all this is getting, including all the Media attention now. Even though I didn't agree with many of her points, I think after this strong of a reaction, it's clear there IS something to consider to her words and what she is trying to make people more aware of.
Yeah, I read the same article this morning. While I don't agree with Anita on much, the prospect that any part of the population would think it's okay to virtually bash her face in because of her opinion is upsetting.
Real life death threats for stating disapproval of the game is even more upsetting.
Social media is a pretty interesting animal. It's capable of gathering people of like mind fairly easily. Problem is, not everyone is of sound mind.
OK, I don't like her, she's not a feminist, I have met feminists, and real feminists are cool and passionate, not what Anita is, Anita is the poor man's excuse for a feminist, she's a joke that got 150K for doing nothing on her chair, while her friends did all the video, makeup and creation process, she the type of girl who lives in her own world, and forgets that sometimes life has certain rules of it's own that we need to tackle at the core, she isn't trying to better the medium or the people around her, she's doing what everyone else with a God-Complex is doing, shouting big words to be heard.
Also, I never heard her talk about her life and work and how women should tackle, because clearly, she doesn't work, she doesn't know the decisions people sometimes have to make in a workplace to not lose a job, and why certain companies functions in certain ways (EI: Companies tend to avoid hiring 'volatile' individuals based upon cultural difference to avoid lawsuits).
She complains about the color pink yet wears it, she doesn't look at stuff from an angle that makes sense (EI: A company spends millions of dollars researching, and she says they're full of it?), she acts like a teacher and considers her watchers students, half of her content, both the Kick starter and Videos currently up are verbal diarrhea, the same things I used to do in SECONDARY SCHOOL, to fool that teachers with longs words and sentences that beat around the bush essentially.
She complains that strong women are essentially males characteristics guised under female looks, she considers passive traits to be feminine, she also is pro-segregation when Japan decided to create female exclusive tube trains, instead of tackling the issue at it's core and hand.
She controls comments about her content, unless you agree with you her in short sentences, she doesn't know about cultures or bothers reading up about it, and never double checks the stuff she's talking about (anyone remember a certain music video she complained about?), she considers act of pre-foreplay, such as stripping or kissing, straight up sexual in nature and should be left to rot, she complains about how Torrent sites have porn Ad's on them (I wonder why...), she's pro-fairness, yet half of the time, doesn't want to show the content she's talking about because she...doesn't want to show it?
Sorry, but lets make this very clear ANITA IS NOT A FEMINIST! Not now, not ever, which why I don't like her even more, feminists already are having a hard-time changing the world, without all those entitles brats who sit home all day long, on their wordpress blogs and youtube accounts, complaining about stuff instead of being active in their communities, she doesn't even deserve to have the word Feminist as her banner, she only hiding under a banner to play the "Woe is me" card.
Do I wish her to die? No, ofcourse not, that would be silly and ignorant of me to silence someone else opinion. However, for everything she is, I'm pretty sure calling her a "Prissy Little Princess" who doesn't know anything about life, nor how it functions, is the least offensive thing there is to say about her skillset frankly, second kindest thing I can say is I could eat an Alphabet soup, and would still be able to shit out a better argument then her, while setting orphans on fire.
Also, if she had any manners or decency, she would donate that money, because making videos, about your passion on a cultural level for individuals around you, and issues at hand that need to be heard, at the rate of 15K per video (150-120 bucks per minute) is not something to be exactly proud of, but hey, at least she can retire at an early age next time she asks for 1M for a fart.
Attempting to discredit someone's argument by calling them a [deragatory term based on their status] is absolutely unacceptable in grownup society.
It's exactly the same as saying 'racism isn't an issue if that dumb nigger would stop talking about it'.
It's an absolutely disgusting way to treat a human being. No matter how valid or invalid the content of your argument is, the moment you use a cliche, derogatory gender/race/religion specific insult like 'stuck up bitch' or 'pretty little princess' you are garbage. There is never an excuse for attempting to leverage hate like that, toward any kind of person, in any situation.
I do not think she is very good at literary analysis.
I think people like you are pigs. Do not shield your argument by saying "I like some feminists, just not ones i disagree with...!" I do not care if you have feminist friends. I do not care if you have black friends.
You are acting like a piece of shit in public.
You are obstinately refusing to understand others' viewpoints.
You are knowingly spewing hate with the attempt to degrade her based on her gender/financial situation/what the fuck ever.
You have never met her before.
That is not okay. It's astonishing that you think it might be, ever.
(As a footnote, your shit about her needing to donate that money is a ridiculous straw-man. If you truly think it's immoral to get paid hundreds of dollars to produce intangible goods, you should not be a professional artist. That is what 3d artists, technical artists, concept artists, and game artists all do. We produce intangible goods and are paid tens or hundreds or thousands of dollars more than people who work on farms in coal mines or whatever.)
Joseph your vitriol is not helping your argument. The most difficult thing about this topic is that it is practically impossible to not involve the problem in the argument.
It doesn't help to use some of the same "connotative language" (which is what all racist, sexist and discriminatory language is) like 'garbage' or 'pig' to put forward an argument that somebody should never use it. A difficult argument to use, since people automatically fall back on that kind of language constantly, due to it being specific, short, emotive, and effective.
After reading both your and Ace-Angel's posts I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how he could have communicated his feeling on the matter, especially as he states that he did watch her videos, any better, or without the emotional charge. I mean some things could have definitely been left off but I have a funny feeling that even a better written version of his opinion wouldn't satisfy you.
telling him he's a piece of shit is just as connotative and derogatory, and we're definitely not going to split hairs on who 'deserves it' because as you say, nobody does.
He watched the videos and that's the closest anyone like us is going to get to understanding her viewpoint. It's not possible to truly understand it as we're not her, but even if we could we'd still have to agree or disagree with them. He may well understand it but refuse to agree. Is that what you meant by refuse to understand?
He is not spewing 'hate' as the term 'hate' means to actively desire removal/death of the hated thing. But I will agree he is being quite spiteful. Regardless, I fail to see how anyone here would justifiably show distaste for her argument (about gender issues) or her recent funding situation without appearing to be picking on her gender or financial background.
Of course he hasn't met her before, have you? The only factors we're capable of using inn a discussion of her opinion and work is what she's shown us.
Where oh where did Ace-Angel state that he though sexism was ok? One of the BIGGEST troubles with this argument that has gone through over 20 pages is that people clearly have different definitions and values. I don't believe for a second that anybody here approves of sexism, if people are subconsciously erring by using statements you understand to be derogatory, calling said person sexist or SIGHING at their words will not give them a startling enlightenment.
On your last note, people have argued for centuries over the worth of peoples jobs, it's impossible to not have conflicting opinions. You can't expect one persons distaste of a certain payment of work to invalidate all their other values. After all, until recently, most governments thought it quite reasonable to deny game studios funding and tax-breaks and give them to other industries such as theatre.
It's more of a case of consistently inciting this kind of behaviour (possibly intentionally). If she ignored the negative comments (or just treated them in a more appropriate and professional manner), they wouldn't tirelessly persist.
true, but we can't victimize people to that degree where we say "well she shouldn't have done this and that"
No one deserves that kind of behavior even though I know the anonymity feeds it.
Also, every bad person out there doing these attacks doesn't make her arguments any more or less correct, some of it is good, some of it is flawed, but ultimately sexism is a real issue, but she's still doing videos about a sub-issue.
additionally: She is not going to donate any of the money because that is against the kickstarter rules, what she is going to do with the money is continue her work in some form.
Snacuum I think there's a weird apologist parable that I could write up in reply to your general behavior, but instead I'm going to offer you the kind of succinct, objective wisdom you seem to expect from me when arguing with people saying appalling sexist shit:
Not all individuals are equally empowered.
Behavior that is harmless to some may be damaging to others, given context.
Racists, sexists, and homophobes (who are typically speaking from a position of relative power) deserve public shaming. Whether it's ignorance, stubbornness, or hate motivating the things they say.
Anyway this thread's pretty gross and I'm probably gonna wash my hands of you creeps and quit posting here. Anything else you could learn about not being bad people is readily available out there.
Snacuum I think there's a weird apologist parable that I could write up in reply to your general behavior,
Then why don't you? As I've mentioned myself, we may be ignorant of our behaviour. I will admit honestly that I have no idea what poor behaviour I'm exhibiting, and I won't know until somebody tells me. I probably won't be very receptive to what they tell me if they vilify me at the same time.
but instead I'm going to offer you the kind of succinct, objective wisdom you seem to expect from me when arguing with people saying appalling sexist shit:
Good, because that's where so much of this problem is coming from. Why are there so many people upset with this lady's videos? For a wild variety of reasons including actual genuinely sexist woman haters, and probably even people who read her message as: "You like all of these video games, that makes you sexist."
That's right, that's the problem. Women aren't so equally empowered. But we don't need false equality created by automatically agreeing with everything someone says.
I also apologise if I read your wisdom wrong, as it could apply differently given the context.
Behavior that is harmless to some may be damaging to others, given context.
Racists, sexists, and homophobes (who are typically speaking from a position of relative power) deserve public shaming. Whether it's ignorance, stubbornness, or hate motivating the things they say.
That's right, context must always be considered. Peoples actions, attitudes, values and morals do not exist in a vacuum. In some countries I could offend by making a certain sound at the dinner table. As this would be likely based on ignorance, should I be publicly shamed for that? I disagree, I've always believed in open reasonable discussion and education.
Which seems to be what this lady is trying to do, but based on many people's reactions I've seen, she's teaching us how not to be so sexist by telling us how horribly sexist we all are: What wonderful positive learning! (sarcasm)
Anyway this thread's pretty gross and I'm probably gonna wash my hands of you creeps and quit posting here. Anything else you could learn about not being bad people is readily available out there.
Nice really nice man. (Also sarcasm as I am after all trying to be rather transparent)
There's lots of jaded men and women in this world, whose experiences with opposite gender were mostly bad. they go around talking about how "women will ruin you" or how 'men are unloyal pieces of shit'
And guess what? it's their fucking lives, you can't deny people's personal experiences.
Sure, you can try to convince them that they are just projecting their bad experiences onto other people, that they're making huge generalizations etc etc.
and if you somehow succeed at changing them, mad respect to you.
But shunning and publically shaming them for not having views that you want them to have? that's retarded.
^ hah. sexism is institutionalized, it permeates all layers of our society, it's nothing that boils down to "well, she must have had a nasty boyfriend sometime in the past".
And this whole thread doesn't surprise me in the least. Angry reactions to having one's faults pointed out, the classic "men are discriminated against too!" smokescreen, calling feminists hysterical, elevating that one woman's differing opinion to a majority standpoint, the "my best friend is a <...>, but.." line.. It's basically the same debate them thar uppity women have to lead all the time, in all aspects of their lives. I personally can't blame them for getting a little exasperated and pissed over time. Which doesn't even apply to Anita.
And Joseph Silverman, yeah the tone might not be helpful, but I feel you. Have been avoiding this thread for a while.
true, but we can't victimize people to that degree where we say "well she shouldn't have done this and that"
No one deserves that kind of behavior even though I know the anonymity feeds it.
I don't disagree, but at the same time you can't expect me to be sympathetic, much like I wouldn't be sympathetic to someone who deliberately stamps on a nail.
I don't disagree, but at the same time you can't expect me to be sympathetic, much like I wouldn't be sympathetic to someone who deliberately stamps on a nail.
"you're walking barefoot, it's your fault someone threw nails under your feet"
Anyway this thread's pretty gross and I'm probably gonna wash my hands of you creeps and quit posting here. Anything else you could learn about not being bad people is readily available out there.
Major respect for sticking with it as long as you did. This whole thread makes me pretty sick so I had to bow out of voicing opinions a while back.
That's a bit fast to jump out, I've seen this thread as being mostly quite civil and full of people who either support her or at least keep it civil about not supporting her, or the people like me who are supportive in a combination with criticism.
Threads will be full of people who will voice against you and say some shitty things, that's part of forum-life, and overall I would say this thread has gone on pretty fine, even though quite long.
I'm interested to see the series tropes vs video games. She is WAY overfunded but I'm interested to see what she comes out with. This thread has been interesting just looking around.
OMG, i can't stand that character with morbid obesity, that's a severe illness! that's an ugly obese woman, maybe a reflect of the actual USA society with their hamburgers? is the concept artirst similar to her?. Give her a damn gastric balloon for god's sake!
This kind of art direction in Borderlands is totally the opposite, and the worse one. I'm sorry but i'm not agree with her, because i have a very strong values for beauty, and she never won't change my ideas with her stupid rants. Sorry.
I present you Daniel Lambert, 335 Kg when he died. I'm sure you will love him ¬¬
What the fuck... the koreans are the ones that really make great things, without falling in the uncanny valley.
Take Bless as example: http://youtu.be/rvC9I7k5jeg
you know what's funny, those Koreans you so love have no problem putting jolly fat men into their games. You just illustrated what a horrible human being you are that women can only fill the role of scantily clad sex objects in games.
I've avoided this thread for a while but when I saw Blaizer was the last post, I figured it would be choice.
Replies
Just goes to show that if you do your research and apply it properly, you'll get results. Kudos to LEGO, even though I doubt profits from that line will be dependable.
I assumed you just didn't know this product launch was a success which is why I linked the article...
So no, I did not know that Lego at some point managed to sell it successfully. It's especially interesting since as you say the product does look like the very thing we're all arguing about. My confusion was simply: Did Lego fail or not? Was Lego sexist or not?
quite the opposite is hwo i understand it, lego always sold to boys because it was marketed to boys so it was genderspecific, now that they do pink lego for girls just proves his point.
This has nothing to do with whether their sales improve. This has to do with whether it's offensive. If all they achieve through not being offensive is to not be offensive, and the problem people had was that Lego were being offensive, then it's a total success. Anita didn't make that video because she wants to help Lego become squillionaires.
Take Left 4 Dead for example. Zoey looks like a normal girl. She speaks like a normal girl. Sure, there's only one girl out of four so you could say it's got the Smurfette thing, but you never feel like she's any less of a character than the others. It's fine.
I'm sure that Valve would have made more money if they'd made her look like this:
Not just because that's totally hot, but because there's also the feminist backlash media you can count on, which helps drive sales.
I'm sure they would have made more money. And I'm also sure that at some point during development, someone at Valve suggested they make her sexier. And I'm glad that somebody else said, "No, we're not making a game like that. We don't make games like that." It makes me happy that, knowing game development culture, this surely happened... and that what I consider to be the right decision was made, regardless of how it might affect the bottom line.
Incidentally, what makes you think that Lego not selling sexist toys for girls would alienate their male audience. Do you think that boys around the world became more confident in Lego as a manufacturer when the new girl line came out?
Are you kidding me man? Should we eliminate everything everybody finds offensive or just the stuff you find offensive? Do you even see the problem with this thinking?
Also do you seriously believe Anita's goal in these videos is to get rid of offensive stuff? Because here I thought it was to promote more diverse products that don't tunnel children into gender roles.
@Snacuum: I definitely agree there's no question it's sexist because it's blatantly reinforcing gender stereotypes. Its success is disappointing but given the amount of research they sunk into it... kind of unsurprising.
Their older products had other problems, plus some of them were just terrible toys to begin with (clikits???)
http://www.destructoid.com/a-response-to-some-arguments-in-anita-sarkeesian-s-interview-230570.phtml
You know, if Anita had half a mind on 'making things work' as opposed to being the prissy little princess who has a loud voice, she would have instead created her own game, with a group of passionate people to 'show' what she thinks is a real game character.
Even something basic as a puzzle or side-scroller, where passion was the forefront, and not the recess pit, but hey, 150K is great cash to pocket on while you print badges and stickers from you local cheap printers at college.
I mean for Family's and Squid Scrotum sake! She called Zia from Bastion, the outsider girl who had more personality then "The Kid", the "Female"...Zia was an important character, and you got a piece of her mind several time, how does that put her in the position of the 'Female'? What about the Squirt or the evil foreigner while at it?
maybe then someone will say "oh... maybe that WASN'T the right way to go about this"?
If sales improve, then it's not all that offensive is it? It's just offensive to a subset of people who aren't a target audience in the first place. And if it's sanitized to cater to their specific outrage-fueld needs, then the product will bomb into oblivion.
She does, but it's again not true that they didn't try to make her sexy, they just did it tastefully.
And the move from portal 1 chell to portal 2:
Both chell and Zoey are intended to look very physically attractive, they've got the personality to back it up though, and that should be the focus on what makes them great.
left 4 dead 2, bonus points for scoring a wide arrange of different characters, but once again, attractive female sporting jewelry and full on makeup:
But again: I'll use the makeup argument, she's wearing makeup and have picked eyebrows in a post apocalyptic scenario, it rests on our expectations that women should be working on their exterior by default, and that by not applying it they'll very truly feel ugly.
It's a huge industry driven by money and actively working to make women feel bad for not wearing it, and feel good by wearing it, it's an industry that does their research through animal experiments (without the awesome medicines as a result).
I don't mind the whole makeup world we've built up, it's been around for ages, but I also don't see it as any better than what the toys industry is doing for equality.
I'm not looking to make any feminists cause any less, I don't think it's against anyone to choose to wear makeup and it's not going to make them any less a feminist, but they're still supporting it, and valve is still supporting it while we praise them for having proper characters.
Are valves female characters great characters? yes. Are they completely free from issues that probably does harm to females in the big broad sense? nope.
Makeup that stays intact for more than a day is one of the most longed for breakthroughs in science :P, it could be possible the zombie apocalypse just happened that morning, but makeup doesn't stay THAT on for long, nor is it a good idea for your eyes to sleep with it on.
Doesn't count as mentioned before in this thread; Mario's design largely conforms to strict requirements of antiquated hardware. He's actually been growing taller and less ugly over time.
Im with this haha
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/9781-Excessively-Excessive
I personally did not like her delivery of the message. Right off the bat, you are hit with the splash screen with the word "Bitch Media". Yes, it's just a word, but it's the first thing you see... so it colours your experience.
Secondly, she sounds condescending and annoyed, and I just don't think that is an effective way to communicate for any human being. I understand that these are issues that are important to her (and the obviously bother her) but the way she phrases some things are very offensive to writers and artists. Kind of like when you read gaming forums or reviews, and someone says "omg problem x is so stupid, how could they have possibly thought this was a good idea" or "how could the game be shipped with problem x! obviously studio x is filled with a bunch of idiots!". Media creation is not a simple task. Writing complex, interesting characters is not easy. It is difficult to tell a story in a video game format. We are still discovering new and better ways to do that, and I think that is at least a part of the problem. To be clear, I'm not saying that these tropes should get a free pass, just saying that game development is still growing and learning at a rapid pace, and that COULD be PART of the problem.
The last main thought I had about her videos is that they did not seem thoroughly researched. As Pseudobug pointed out very early in this thread, the Big Barda example that she used was not valid. Yes, this is just one example, but it's a small video where this is one of the main examples... And you are telling me this is being used in universities and schools? Yikes. Come on, give me FACTS, DATA, ACTUAL RESEARCH. In her videos, she makes very bold statements, and backs them up with terms like "I feel..." and "a lot". This is not acceptable to me, as she presents her findings as facts.
Overall, I wanted to agree with her. I wanted to be on her side. I think she is bringing up some valid problems (I disagree with a few of her videos, but to explain why would be another mini essay for each video). It is her delivery of these arguments and ideas that rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I will comment on the kickstarter and why I disagree with some of her points, but that will be later. I mostly just want to brain dump a bit, as I've been thinking about this a lot since I started reading the thread.
It would be good to go into detail of the psychological/sociological human nature and its approach to excess. Just saying that video games revel in excess is not enough, we need 'define' excess and we to explore why games (or more appropriately - players) grapple with it so successfully. Interactivity definitely plays a much more important role than it seems people want to admit.
SIGH.
I know you're probably sick of the whole argument but I hope you realise that your 'SIGH' is just as poor communication and contribution to this discussion as what made this a problem in society.
Snac, I'm not sure if this can even be done. It's a bit like saying that we should be a able to give a formula for what is a good book, and what isn't...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpeLSMKNFO4
In that regard I think what Yahtzee is touching on is that such things are very, very subtle and fragile and hard to balance. (in passing : subtlety and balance are things that the Kickstarter Tropes girl seems to be totally lacking, and that's what annoys me about her mostly. She's just not a good critic, plain and simple.)
Great games can be made from excess (Shadow of The Colossus anyone ? Bayonetta? and so on) while others just work better when nicely put together within strong and rather abstract constraints (Left for Dead, Portal, Minecraft ...)
I have the feeling that excess (and tropes, and so on) are mostly a question of too many cooks in the kitchen really. I could bet that when working on Mario Galaxy, Miyamoto was dedicating himself to designing cool gravity/planet based puzzles and platform segments - not to making the scope of this game "bigger" than his previous ones... as a matter of fact, as the talented designer he is I honestly think he doesn't care one bit about that kind of stuff.
What I essentially meant is that I see so many people who study games/media focus on what "games are doing" "what games are saying" etc. That works well for books and movies and other non-interactive media but I believe it is short-sighted in the case of games. Yes developers do but in excess for the sake of attracting sales but it is of my opinion that developers are not solely contributing.
Everyone is happy to say what games are doing 'wrong' in the greater society but never admits that the games can't do anything without their players. Watching or reading about a guy taking down a massive giant is pretty spectacular, but doing it yourself?
Disclaimer: Yes this argument sort of ran in circles... I just am totally over-interested in the roots of cause.
(hope I am following you properly!)
That's actually an interesting way to look at this trope thing. The Bayonetta character is, again a fantastic example. She totally fits the gameplay of the game, it's an awesome fun package ... but the Trope Girl criticizes it because, of course, she's not a gamer and most likely sees little value in the incredibly fluid (and sexy!) gameplay of the game, which totally goes hand in hand with the character. Same with the original Tomb Raider design - she's a beautiful gymnast doing backflips over ancient ruins. In that regard she looks exactly like what she is supposed to look like! Even the leotard she wears is just like a gymnast outfit.
Interesting!
Games can indeed tell stories, and they can function as pure gameplay that people actually play or interact with (play being a concept that is constantly studied as it goes much further than what we instantly understand it as)
However games can only be considered as a media by comparison to other forms of media. These other forms have been studied extensively and can easily be analysed in terms of their content, message, and greater meaning. But this works less capably for games since they are young as a storytelling medium and factor in a completely new variable that changes the meaning and experience both objectively and subjectively: interaction.
Interaction is impossible without a player. They are the tool by which interactivity communicates, the audience is exclusive to the player and no longer shown, but now in conversation with the game. A movie will still play without an audience, a book will still contain words, but a game practically ceases to exist without somebody to play it. Chess is a brilliant game, but it's brilliance becomes infinite when each players (and possibly spectators) experience becomes a part of its greater meaning.
So it becomes an even greater task to understand how modern games work as a media when it heaps all of the elements of previous media, with stories to tell, moving music and spectacular visuals AND THEN ADDS, choice, ownership, creativity, strategy, consequence and so many more of the things we grapple with in real life.
Stories held up a mirror to society so that we could better understand ourselves. Games and play allow ourselves to make those stories.
Henry Ford once said something along the lines of
"You can have the car in any colour as long as it's black."
There was probably somebody who was upset with all the black cars in the street, and blamed him for socially manipulating peoples choices, forgetting why at all everyone wanted cars so badly in the first place.
And so with games, we can spend forever complaining about how they make another Call of Duty (and that's valid, we should always call for more variety) but there are millions of players who can care for nothing more than another explosion filled, simple gameplay shooter that puts the power in their hands and gives them an experience that means far and beyond a lot more to them than any movie or book can muster.
edit: many people will probably take this as meaning that in terms of this sexism debate, I'm saying that the player is sexist and the developer is not. This is not what I'm saying. Sexism is such a larger concept of human psychology and sociology than fits into any medium. What games say to their players is important and plays a big role in the experiences we have, my point was that it's always a conversation and not just a telling.
[ame="
Then let him give it to women because men speaking and making decisions for women about women's rights is an exercise in patronizing silliness.
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1224659--gamer-campaign-against-anita-sarkeesian-catches-toronto-feminist-in-crossfire
The article is essentially about a new game created in which the player can violently beat up Anita Sarkeesian. She then criticized the game on Twitter, which apparently led to a whole new slew of rape and death threats.
If nothing else, I find it interesting just how much attention all this is getting, including all the Media attention now. Even though I didn't agree with many of her points, I think after this strong of a reaction, it's clear there IS something to consider to her words and what she is trying to make people more aware of.
Yeah, I read the same article this morning. While I don't agree with Anita on much, the prospect that any part of the population would think it's okay to virtually bash her face in because of her opinion is upsetting.
Real life death threats for stating disapproval of the game is even more upsetting.
Social media is a pretty interesting animal. It's capable of gathering people of like mind fairly easily. Problem is, not everyone is of sound mind.
...
OK, I don't like her, she's not a feminist, I have met feminists, and real feminists are cool and passionate, not what Anita is, Anita is the poor man's excuse for a feminist, she's a joke that got 150K for doing nothing on her chair, while her friends did all the video, makeup and creation process, she the type of girl who lives in her own world, and forgets that sometimes life has certain rules of it's own that we need to tackle at the core, she isn't trying to better the medium or the people around her, she's doing what everyone else with a God-Complex is doing, shouting big words to be heard.
Also, I never heard her talk about her life and work and how women should tackle, because clearly, she doesn't work, she doesn't know the decisions people sometimes have to make in a workplace to not lose a job, and why certain companies functions in certain ways (EI: Companies tend to avoid hiring 'volatile' individuals based upon cultural difference to avoid lawsuits).
She complains about the color pink yet wears it, she doesn't look at stuff from an angle that makes sense (EI: A company spends millions of dollars researching, and she says they're full of it?), she acts like a teacher and considers her watchers students, half of her content, both the Kick starter and Videos currently up are verbal diarrhea, the same things I used to do in SECONDARY SCHOOL, to fool that teachers with longs words and sentences that beat around the bush essentially.
She complains that strong women are essentially males characteristics guised under female looks, she considers passive traits to be feminine, she also is pro-segregation when Japan decided to create female exclusive tube trains, instead of tackling the issue at it's core and hand.
She controls comments about her content, unless you agree with you her in short sentences, she doesn't know about cultures or bothers reading up about it, and never double checks the stuff she's talking about (anyone remember a certain music video she complained about?), she considers act of pre-foreplay, such as stripping or kissing, straight up sexual in nature and should be left to rot, she complains about how Torrent sites have porn Ad's on them (I wonder why...), she's pro-fairness, yet half of the time, doesn't want to show the content she's talking about because she...doesn't want to show it?
Sorry, but lets make this very clear ANITA IS NOT A FEMINIST! Not now, not ever, which why I don't like her even more, feminists already are having a hard-time changing the world, without all those entitles brats who sit home all day long, on their wordpress blogs and youtube accounts, complaining about stuff instead of being active in their communities, she doesn't even deserve to have the word Feminist as her banner, she only hiding under a banner to play the "Woe is me" card.
Do I wish her to die? No, ofcourse not, that would be silly and ignorant of me to silence someone else opinion. However, for everything she is, I'm pretty sure calling her a "Prissy Little Princess" who doesn't know anything about life, nor how it functions, is the least offensive thing there is to say about her skillset frankly, second kindest thing I can say is I could eat an Alphabet soup, and would still be able to shit out a better argument then her, while setting orphans on fire.
Also, if she had any manners or decency, she would donate that money, because making videos, about your passion on a cultural level for individuals around you, and issues at hand that need to be heard, at the rate of 15K per video (150-120 bucks per minute) is not something to be exactly proud of, but hey, at least she can retire at an early age next time she asks for 1M for a fart.
Pretty much the conclusion I reached after watching more of her videos.
It's exactly the same as saying 'racism isn't an issue if that dumb nigger would stop talking about it'.
It's an absolutely disgusting way to treat a human being. No matter how valid or invalid the content of your argument is, the moment you use a cliche, derogatory gender/race/religion specific insult like 'stuck up bitch' or 'pretty little princess' you are garbage. There is never an excuse for attempting to leverage hate like that, toward any kind of person, in any situation.
I do not think she is very good at literary analysis.
I think people like you are pigs. Do not shield your argument by saying "I like some feminists, just not ones i disagree with...!" I do not care if you have feminist friends. I do not care if you have black friends.
(As a footnote, your shit about her needing to donate that money is a ridiculous straw-man. If you truly think it's immoral to get paid hundreds of dollars to produce intangible goods, you should not be a professional artist. That is what 3d artists, technical artists, concept artists, and game artists all do. We produce intangible goods and are paid tens or hundreds or thousands of dollars more than people who work on farms in coal mines or whatever.)
It doesn't help to use some of the same "connotative language" (which is what all racist, sexist and discriminatory language is) like 'garbage' or 'pig' to put forward an argument that somebody should never use it. A difficult argument to use, since people automatically fall back on that kind of language constantly, due to it being specific, short, emotive, and effective.
After reading both your and Ace-Angel's posts I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how he could have communicated his feeling on the matter, especially as he states that he did watch her videos, any better, or without the emotional charge. I mean some things could have definitely been left off but I have a funny feeling that even a better written version of his opinion wouldn't satisfy you.
- telling him he's a piece of shit is just as connotative and derogatory, and we're definitely not going to split hairs on who 'deserves it' because as you say, nobody does.
- He watched the videos and that's the closest anyone like us is going to get to understanding her viewpoint. It's not possible to truly understand it as we're not her, but even if we could we'd still have to agree or disagree with them. He may well understand it but refuse to agree. Is that what you meant by refuse to understand?
- He is not spewing 'hate' as the term 'hate' means to actively desire removal/death of the hated thing. But I will agree he is being quite spiteful. Regardless, I fail to see how anyone here would justifiably show distaste for her argument (about gender issues) or her recent funding situation without appearing to be picking on her gender or financial background.
- Of course he hasn't met her before, have you? The only factors we're capable of using inn a discussion of her opinion and work is what she's shown us.
- Where oh where did Ace-Angel state that he though sexism was ok? One of the BIGGEST troubles with this argument that has gone through over 20 pages is that people clearly have different definitions and values. I don't believe for a second that anybody here approves of sexism, if people are subconsciously erring by using statements you understand to be derogatory, calling said person sexist or SIGHING at their words will not give them a startling enlightenment.
On your last note, people have argued for centuries over the worth of peoples jobs, it's impossible to not have conflicting opinions. You can't expect one persons distaste of a certain payment of work to invalidate all their other values. After all, until recently, most governments thought it quite reasonable to deny game studios funding and tax-breaks and give them to other industries such as theatre.true, but we can't victimize people to that degree where we say "well she shouldn't have done this and that"
No one deserves that kind of behavior even though I know the anonymity feeds it.
Also, every bad person out there doing these attacks doesn't make her arguments any more or less correct, some of it is good, some of it is flawed, but ultimately sexism is a real issue, but she's still doing videos about a sub-issue.
additionally: She is not going to donate any of the money because that is against the kickstarter rules, what she is going to do with the money is continue her work in some form.
Not all individuals are equally empowered.
Behavior that is harmless to some may be damaging to others, given context.
Racists, sexists, and homophobes (who are typically speaking from a position of relative power) deserve public shaming. Whether it's ignorance, stubbornness, or hate motivating the things they say.
Anyway this thread's pretty gross and I'm probably gonna wash my hands of you creeps and quit posting here. Anything else you could learn about not being bad people is readily available out there.
Then why don't you? As I've mentioned myself, we may be ignorant of our behaviour. I will admit honestly that I have no idea what poor behaviour I'm exhibiting, and I won't know until somebody tells me. I probably won't be very receptive to what they tell me if they vilify me at the same time.
Good, because that's where so much of this problem is coming from. Why are there so many people upset with this lady's videos? For a wild variety of reasons including actual genuinely sexist woman haters, and probably even people who read her message as: "You like all of these video games, that makes you sexist."
That's right, that's the problem. Women aren't so equally empowered. But we don't need false equality created by automatically agreeing with everything someone says.
I also apologise if I read your wisdom wrong, as it could apply differently given the context.
That's right, context must always be considered. Peoples actions, attitudes, values and morals do not exist in a vacuum. In some countries I could offend by making a certain sound at the dinner table. As this would be likely based on ignorance, should I be publicly shamed for that? I disagree, I've always believed in open reasonable discussion and education.
Which seems to be what this lady is trying to do, but based on many people's reactions I've seen, she's teaching us how not to be so sexist by telling us how horribly sexist we all are: What wonderful positive learning! (sarcasm)
Nice really nice man. (Also sarcasm as I am after all trying to be rather transparent)
And guess what? it's their fucking lives, you can't deny people's personal experiences.
Sure, you can try to convince them that they are just projecting their bad experiences onto other people, that they're making huge generalizations etc etc.
and if you somehow succeed at changing them, mad respect to you.
But shunning and publically shaming them for not having views that you want them to have? that's retarded.
And this whole thread doesn't surprise me in the least. Angry reactions to having one's faults pointed out, the classic "men are discriminated against too!" smokescreen, calling feminists hysterical, elevating that one woman's differing opinion to a majority standpoint, the "my best friend is a <...>, but.." line.. It's basically the same debate them thar uppity women have to lead all the time, in all aspects of their lives. I personally can't blame them for getting a little exasperated and pissed over time. Which doesn't even apply to Anita.
And Joseph Silverman, yeah the tone might not be helpful, but I feel you. Have been avoiding this thread for a while.
I don't disagree, but at the same time you can't expect me to be sympathetic, much like I wouldn't be sympathetic to someone who deliberately stamps on a nail.
"you're walking barefoot, it's your fault someone threw nails under your feet"
Major respect for sticking with it as long as you did. This whole thread makes me pretty sick so I had to bow out of voicing opinions a while back.
I don't really think you can change opinions and behaviour over the internet, you just polarise existing opinions; but just in case you, reader, are one of those "come on, give me a break -- we're all nice guys and not rapists" guys, here's an article on why we should stand up against certain attitudes that I found interesting.
Threads will be full of people who will voice against you and say some shitty things, that's part of forum-life, and overall I would say this thread has gone on pretty fine, even though quite long.
http://kotaku.com/5926542/borderlands-2-doesnt-want-you-cracking-jokes-about-this-character
This kind of art direction in Borderlands is totally the opposite, and the worse one. I'm sorry but i'm not agree with her, because i have a very strong values for beauty, and she never won't change my ideas with her stupid rants. Sorry.
I present you Daniel Lambert, 335 Kg when he died. I'm sure you will love him ¬¬
What the fuck... the koreans are the ones that really make great things, without falling in the uncanny valley.
Take Bless as example:
http://youtu.be/rvC9I7k5jeg
I've avoided this thread for a while but when I saw Blaizer was the last post, I figured it would be choice.