Support NeoGAF

[ChawlieTheFair]

Tell me if anything is lost if they took out the fact that you could have sex with prostitutes entirely?


The point of the game is satire though, or at least it tries to be. There's a reason why the call it the "Federal Investigation Bureau" after all.

Yes it's satire, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a basis in realism or reality.

 

[Nibiru]

I am pretty sure women game more now than ever before. Things will change and evolve. As women become a larger demo devs will be more cautious as to how they portray them. Ultimately the market will fix this, it always does.

 

[sentry65]

Do you think The Last of Us was censored?

Absolutely the scene with that child-perv guy and Ellie was censored. A movie would have taken that scene a bit further to further drive the grossness of it all, but that area is still too off-limits for the game industry. That situation was disgusting and you felt it - where they put you on the receiving end for a change.

I applaud them for that game and it got the recognition it deserved. They really helped push women into a more realistic role than just being eye-candy.

 

[Basketball]

Tell me if anything is lost if they took out the fact that you could have sex with prostitutes entirely?

I always see it as a negative when developers remove things from games especially when they have always been in the series and are completely optional. It's all about choices/ options and I think more is better no matter how insignificant it is.

in gta v
for example one player could play as a complete psycho (mowing down npcs/ using then killing prostitutes/ picking up strippers / murdering cops all the time etc)

another could be a relaxed player who just plays the ingame golf or tennis / bike races / customizes cars etc

I don't fault the first player for his/her playstyle and I certainly don't want developers to tailor their games so that he or she can't enjoy the game how they want to

options are always nice

 

[Keirnoth]

Mod Edit:
For your reference, here's a brief list of things that aren't particularly relevant to discussion here:
-these videos probably cost less than $140k to make
-these videos/the Kickstarter are making/made Sarkeesian money
-these videos are only presenting Sarkeesian's side of the argument
-Sarkeesian wears makeup/earrings/whatever
-Sarkeesian turned off comments to her videos

To the mods:

A lot of these points are very good and actually weakens her (poorly researched) arguments against the strawman of sexism in video games. I don't see how these particular points aren't relevant to the discussion, especially since we're now having a bunch of people who don't know better taking what she says as the word of god, equivalent to that of a mainstream cable news political pundit.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

The implications of Sarkeesian's examples are troubling for me, as they suggest she either isn't able to identify the semiotics of criticism within the games themselves (example: The clip from Red Dead Redemption wasn't one of encouraging female objectification, but she noted it as one), or she's frequently (and I fear, knowingly) falling into a fallacy of incomplete evidence.

For a point of reference: If I read a paper by a student where even one-fifth of their evidence fell into that category (incomplete evidence), it would undermine the merit of that argument. It would be wisest to remove it all-together. If their thesis relied on any of those examples, I would consider that a failing paper. Sarkeesian seems to fall short of that standard, from a quick overview. When any critic cites works as indicative of a pattern, when that work is actually critical of that pattern, that should be a a black mark on their understanding of the subject. Since the alternative would reflect even more poorly on the author (deliberate academic dishonesty), I'll simply assume it's unfamiliarity with the work. This isn't me objecting to the premise: I already agree with the premise; I'd like to see more social commentary along these lines, but this is a troubling use of "evidence" to that end.

This is exactly how I feel. Nothing undermines a position to the rational like bad or incomplete evidence. However, said evidence is still given equal weight by the masses, which is a real shame. I support this type of critical analysis and commentary, and I would agree with most of her asserted theses so far despite the fact that I find her support dubious.

 

[sonicmj1]

Telling an industry to get rid of ideas that have not proven to be harmful is censorship.

Why is Palmer Luckey trying to censor 30 FPS games?

I don’t think 30fps is smart... It’s not a good artistic decision, it’s a failure.

 

[Orayn]

Ah but that's not what's happening. If you suggest to many here "just support the games you don't like and not the games you don't" that is apparently trivializing a major issue. They're destroying the reputation of developers simply because the content of their games is something they don't like.

1. I didn't say that people should vote exclusively with their wallets, I said that was one component of how to take a stance on an issue.

2. Show me some evidence of a developer being demonstrably harmed by this video series. Hint: Slander and libel are the legal terms for this sort of thing, but they don't work on indirect damage caused by someone convincing others to abstain from buying a product by way of expressing opinions that a reasonable person might hold.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

To the mods:

A lot of these points are very good and actually weakens her (poorly researched) arguments against the strawman of sexism in video games. I don't see how these particular points aren't relevant to the discussion, especially since we're now having a bunch of people who don't know better taking what she says as the word of god, equivalent to that of a mainstream cable news political pundit.

And who are these people who don't know better and are taking her to be speaking the word of god. How are those points relevant to the discussion of the video and its content beside being attempts to frame her as a villain who is attacking video games?

 

[sentry65]

To the mods:

A lot of these points are very good and actually weakens her (poorly researched) arguments against the strawman of sexism in video games. I don't see how these particular points aren't relevant to the discussion, especially since we're now having a bunch of people who don't know better taking what she says as the word of god, equivalent to that of a mainstream cable news political pundit.

I agree, those points are a side-show from the main point

 

[Jado]

As I said in my first post, prostitutes are a real part of life, and games like GTA seek to create believeable/realistic open worlds, so prostitutes being in a video game does have a place in terms of immersion.

You're being extremely naive if you think strippers and escorts live in an environment even remotely like GTA. There's honestly nothing immersive about the childish depictions of sexuality and adult entertainment featured in games. And I can't help but suspect it's the fault of the devs (or publisher decisions predicting what their immature audiences expect) than limitations of the technology.

These videos make me sick. I haven't played most of the games in this video (only Fallout and GTA I think) but stacked up all together you can see this is a wide spread problem - they even use the same corny bullshit, more than a few of those games had women saying "you're so hot, I'd give it to you for free" before you were allowed to stab them in the gut and stomp on their face. I feel ashamed to be a gamer when I see this.

It really is embarrassing stuff for so-called mature games and a medium that wants to be taken seriously. I can't think of a single mainstream film off the top of my head that depicts women in such an incredibly stupid and embarassing fashion as video games routinely do (although I'm sure some exist and film has it own problems). Even stuff like Machete, with the naked girl he's saving/carrying in the beginning for example, is very tongue in cheek and has women with some depth who talk and fight back like real people. I actually think the video games referenced in this Tropes video come closer to what one sees and hears in gonzo porn.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

You're being extremely naive if you think strippers and escorts live in an environment even remotely like GTA. There's honestly nothing immersive about the childish depictions of sexuality and adult entertainment featured in games. And I can't help but suspect it's the fault of the devs (or publisher decisions predicting what their immature audiences expect) than limitations of the technology.



It really is embarrassing stuff for so-called mature games and a medium that wants to be taken seriously. I can't think of a single mainstream film off the top of my head that depicts women in such an incredibly stupid and embarassing fashion as video games routinely do (although I'm sure some exist and film has it own problems). Even stuff like Machete, with the naked girl he's saving/carrying in the beginning for example, is very tongue in cheek and has women with some depth who talk and fight back like real people. I actually think the video games referenced in this Tropes video come closer to what one sees and hears in gonzo porn.

What environment of GTA? Be specific, there are shit tons of environments in GTA.

 

[Palette Swap]

Slightly OT in the sense that it doesn't pertain to the points specifically addressed in the video but rather to the broader issues of inclusiveness and representation, but I read that last week at the end of a comic book and that kind of resonated with all these discussions:

There was no big meeting. It's a few things. I know I sound like I'm a hundred years old when I say this, but with the growth of the online comics community came more awareness of the world and who's really reading these books. And y'know what? Sure, there are people who look like Captain America who read comics, but there are very few people in the world who look like Captain America. I go to conventions, and you meet hundreds of people over the course of the day, and no two of them look alike. You see women and people of color who love comics, and there's nothing representing them in a way that isn't sexualized or something.

Now, you can't make these decisions [to be more inclusive] consciously, because then you're just writing in reaction to things, and that doesn't work out, dramatically. But subconsciously, if you look at the world around you and see your readers, you go, I wanna write something that I know is true. So you start writing women better and you write people outside of your experience better, because you look at pages of other people's comics and you don't recognize it as the world around you.

You attempt to rectify that — sometimes subtly, sometimes boldly — and if enough people are doing that, there's a sea change. And then you go to the publisher and say, "Miles is gonna be half Hispanic and half African-American," and they go, "Oh, good, we should publish more of that." And it's not just me: It's [fellow Marvel writers] Matt Fraction and Kelly Sue DeConnick and Ed Brubaker and others who fight the good fight and put characters out there that don't represent everyone, but all of them put together represent more of the world that we live in. And the response you get back is something else, boy oh boy.

That's Bendis in an interview. There's much (good and bad) to be said about his writing but the guy has been one of the best selling comic writers for a decade now and it's interesting to see his stance on these issues from that position.

/end derail

(Edited for full quote and clarity)

 

[SmokyDave]

OK, still not getting it? Imagine you are in UK. You visit all the cities. For every "quality" woman in a poster 7 more women pornstar posters exist.

Do you understand why quality within quantity is important to achieve and why it is important in that respect for social perception to be as positive as possible for women? Do you understand why it is important from the youngest person to the oldest to share the same consensus that women are represented well in video games?

Spoiler

Do you understand what is love baby don't hurt me?

I don't really know what you're getting at, but you should probably avoid treating 'quality women' and 'porn stars' as mutually exclusive. I should imagine it's possible for a 'quality' woman to find a happy and empowered career in adult entertainment.

 

[Brakke]

proof of harm

This is such a weird sticking point you have.

You don't need to be able to draw a causal link between poor representations of women to murdering women in order to make the claim that these depictions are harmful. At the very least, you know they cause harm as dozens of people in this thread are coming in with posts like "that was hard to watch".

 

[Superflat]

Like the others have said, this video is a mix of great points that are then undermined numerous times by making sweeping radical statements. It has a very "preaching to the choir" feel to the whole thing. I believe her core points to be true and valuable, but it all falls apart bit by bit with small drive-by implications and reaching with some of her examples.

I guess it works fine as a editorial piece, but I thought she was trying to create a piece of work that would possibly persuade a huge crowd of the gaming audience that wasn't aware of these issues; but that was just my expectation. Her main points are fine, but she keeps twisting the knife in a way that makes me think even people who are for equal representation in video games would find this series as a whole hard to recommend.

But in a way I can't blame Sarkeesian for presenting an unfair argument when the industry at large hasn't been fair either when it comes to gender equality. She has the heart and passion for it at least. I just think it's unfortunate that the video almost feels like it wants to stir up controversy instead of trying to pull people to their side with waterproof rationale. Instead it feels like a video made for people who are already on their side to beat their chests and root for themselves in way.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

Exactly. We have plenty of studies showing that when people engage in killing humans (99% male characters, BTW) in videogames many hours a week they don't develop violent tendencies as a result. Am I to believe without any evidence that these sexist depictions actually harm women? Particularly when most women don't even play them or know of their existence?

This is a logically inconsistent mess. I hope others can see that.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

They're telling us how it's wrong and it should be changed. Censorship isn't necessarily throwing books in a fire.

Hence why I asked, where's the proof of harm?

If there's actual harm then yes, it should be changed. If there isn't then there's no basis other than "I don't like it".

The basic idea is that repeated exposure to bad portrayals can lead to socialising society into thinking in certain ways. I'm sure someone who has done more research or has good links will appear and provide you with the necessary pieces.

I posted one article earlier that I thought was good at describing the ways in which turning women into objects rather than subjects are harmful.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/joy-goh-mah/objectification-women-sexy-pictures_b_3403251.html

Anyway, the cumulative effect of all this is that we are socialising generation after generation to view the world, and the women in it, from the point of view of men. As a result, only men are seen as full and complete human beings, not women. Women are objectified - this means we are denied agency, and are seen from the outside, our own consciousness, our thoughts and feelings, utterly overlooked.

It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that Tomb Raider's executive producer, Rob Rosenberg, finds it natural to assert that players "don't project themselves into [Lara Croft's] character," that they think "I'm going to this adventure with her and trying to protect her." Even though they are actually playing as Lara.

It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that Stephen Hawking can declare women to be "a complete mystery", and have newspapers gleefully latch on to this, declaring women "the greatest mystery known to man". It is a common refrain for men to bleat about not understanding women, but this is because they have simply never tried, because society has trained them to never look at life through the eyes of a woman.

It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that when society is presented with a case of male violence or sexual abuse, everyone looks at it from his point of view: "Oh, he must have been provoked to have done that," "He was a nice man who just snapped," "He must have been confused by her signals," "Maybe he's been falsely accused, how terrible to have to go to jail for that." With every victim-blaming, rape / violence apologist comment, society reveals through whose eyes it looks, and the answer is invariably the man's.

It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that even good men, when speaking out against violence against women, tell other men to imagine her as "somebody's wife, somebody's mother, somebody's daughter, or somebody's sister," it never occurring to them that maybe, just maybe, a woman is also "somebody".

It is frightening to consider just how deeply entrenched objectification of women really goes. We must certainly combat sexual objectification, but the battle will not end there. Women are objectified in more profound ways than we realise, and we must tear down every entwined shred of the patriarchy, in order to achieve our modest goal of being recognized and treated as human beings.

So basically you think women who flaunt their sexuality degrade themselves and there should not be game characters that represent them. Isn't that called "slut shaming"?

The problem with it is these women have no agencies of their own. They're sexy because someone made them to be for various purposes.
It is different from a woman who has chose to dress sexily and who wants to flaunt their own sexuality. Agency is the key in the discussion of objectification of people.

 

[Phades]

How the hell you can read my post literally (hint)?

The comparitive logic involved leads people to do that.

 

[Superflat]

The problem with it is these women have no agencies of their own. They're sexy because someone made them to be for various purposes.
It is different from a woman who has chose to dress sexily and who wants to flaunt their own sexuality. Agency is the key in the discussion of objectification of people.

Not being cheeky or anything, but I don't know what the implication of your statement is. Characters are creations so they will never have agency. They don't choose to be modest or good human beings either. How they are presented and written is who they are, right?

 

[Htown]

Saying, "I don't like what you're doing and here's why" is not censorship. It's criticism.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

The basic idea is that repeated exposure to bad portrayals can lead to socialising society into thinking in certain ways. I'm sure someone who has done more research or has good links will appear and provide you with the necessary pieces.

I posted one article earlier that I thought was good at describing the ways in which turning women into objects rather than subjects are harmful.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/joy-goh-mah/objectification-women-sexy-pictures_b_3403251.html






The problem with it is these women have no agencies of their own. They're sexy because someone made them to be for various purposes.
It is different from a woman who has chose to dress sexily and who wants to flaunt their own sexuality. Agency is the key in the discussion of objectification of people.

How is this an argument? None of the characters have any actual real choice, they are not even real. How does a woman in real life who wants to dress sexually differ from a woman in a game who wants to dress sexually. Why does it's "purpose" matter? The end result is the same.

 

[Zoe]

Binary Domain is a Sci Fi ... they showed prostitutes because they WANTED.
They could have EASILY shown a part of the slums without any prostitutes (slums =/= red light district) or even choose to show fully clothed prostitutes because whatever future sci fy =P

Wait, aren't they fully clothed? They're fully clothed here:

And better do it fast and edit the post. EDIT: well, nvm.

Anyway, I was just thinking "prostitutes in Binary Domain, wat?". I googled and yes, there are like 2. But they aren't nude or even close to that.

I was only able to remember that "chop chop" guy, who is also "useless", but it's about creating a setting. And without any dialog you wouldn't even know that those are prostitutes (I actually didn't talk to them, go figure).

Those are "sex objects"? Not in my book. Those are simply "extras". Just look at Fey - that's what I call hot. Still Fey is not useless and she is

Spoiler

also a robot

 

[firehawk12]

Yes it's satire, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a basis in realism or reality.

The reality that they are creating isn't compromised if they took out specific character models or moved the "car bouncing" animation for their pointless sex minigame though.

I always see it as a negative when developers remove things from games especially when they have always been in the series and are completely optional. It's all about choices/ options and I think more is better no matter how insignificant it is.

in gta v
for example one player could play as a complete psycho (mowing down npcs/ using then killing prostitutes/ picking up strippers / murdering cops all the time etc)

another could be a relaxed player who just plays the ingame golf or tennis / bike races / customizes cars etc

I don't fault the first player for his/her playstyle and I certainly don't want developers to tailor their games so that he or she can't enjoy the game how they want to

options are always nice

I think I wouldn't mind if they didn't chicken out and hide the Hot Coffee stuff in GTA:SA or refuse to address sex in any meaningful way after the fact. As it is, it feels like it's there because it's something they've done in previous games.

But they took out all the bullshit from GTA:SA that made it a bad game. No more hunger meter, no more "fat" meter. In GTAV, you can't even walk into restaurants and order food anymore. So why can they remove that Sims garbage but not this weird prostitute stuff that they don't want to draw attention to anyway?

 

[Odrion]

I don't think the point Anita was trying to make was "sexiness = bad."

 

[Gaz_RB]

Interesting video, as her videos usually are. You don't even have to agree with everything that's there, but they help open your eyes while you're playing these games.

But mainly this video reminded me how fucking horrible Fallout 3/New Vegas looks.

 

[Delusibeta]

I do have to wonder why the games media in general treats claims that violence in video games is harmful differently than claims that sexism in video games is harmful. In the former, proof is usually demanded, and then mocked when it proves to be flimsy, which never occurs in the latter. They usually also seek proof for specifically video games. I suppose that's partly because the violence claims have been going back decades while the sexism claims basically started with Anita, but I do have to wonder why people are surprised when the same tactics are used for both: deny, mock and troll.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

The reality that they are creating isn't compromised if they took out specific character models or moved the "car bouncing" animation for their pointless sex minigame though.


I think I wouldn't mind if they didn't chicken out and hide the Hot Coffee stuff in GTA:SA or refuse to address sex in any meaningful way after the fact. As it is, it feels like it's there because it's something they've done in previous games.

But they took out all the bullshit from GTA:SA that made it a bad game. No more hunger meter, no more "fat" meter. In GTAV, you can't even walk into restaurants and order food anymore. So why can they remove that Sims garbage but not this weird prostitute stuff that they don't want to draw attention to anyway?

You're playing a video game about running people over, everything about it is pointless, why does it matter to you so much if it is in there?

 

[border]

Seems like 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

The first half of the video is pretty good, and informative.

The second half seems really disingenuous. It feels edited to make it seem like the objectified women are specific targets of violence and that the player is prompted or encouraged to abuse them. The fact of the matter is they are handled the same as any other nameless NPC. They don't have a name or a backstory? You're not meant to feel any empathy for them? They have no "voice" in the narrative? You suffer little to no consequence for murdering them? They drop money when you kill them? Yes, but that's the case with every shopkeeper, pedestrian, policeman, taxi driver, or bystander in any of these games (regardless of gender or objectification).

 

[firehawk12]

You're playing a video game about running people over, everything about it is pointless, why does it matter to you so much if it is in there?

I personally don't care, since I don't engage with the mechanic anyway, but I guess I would just ask the same question back though - why does it matter to you that it stays in the game?

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Why is Palmer Luckey trying to censor 30 FPS games?

AFAIK, he doesn't like 30fps, has no interest in the opinion of those who prefer 30fps and his product requires 60fps to work properly.

2. Show me some evidence of a developer being demonstrably harmed by this video series. Hint: Slander and libel are the legal terms for this sort of thing, but they don't work on indirect damage caused by someone convincing others to abstain from buying a product by way of expressing opinions that a reasonable person might hold.

The attitude towards the developers of the games used as examples has been very positive, right?

This is such a weird sticking point you have.

You don't need to be able to draw a causal link between poor representations of women to murdering women in order to make the claim that these depictions are harmful. At the very least, you know they cause harm as dozens of people in this thread are coming in with posts like "that was hard to watch".

How is "hard to watch" proof of harm? Being uncomfortable isn't the same as being harmed.

The basic idea is that repeated exposure to bad portrayals can lead to socialising society into thinking in certain ways. I'm sure someone who has done more research or has good links will appear and provide you with the necessary pieces.

I posted one article earlier that I thought was good at describing the ways in which turning women into objects rather than subjects are harmful.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/joy-goh-mah/objectification-women-sexy-pictures_b_3403251.html

That's just an opinion, no actual data to be found there. It's simply promotes the idea of women as victim and men as oppresors. Pretty much everywhere in the US men are considered guilty until proven innocent when it comes to accusations of violence towards women. Men are even being expelled out of colleges without any actual investigations taking place.

The problem with it is these women have no agencies of their own. They're sexy because someone made them to be for various purposes.
It is different from a woman who has chose to dress sexily and who wants to flaunt their own sexuality. Agency is the key in the discussion of objectification of people.

So as long as the character is designed by a woman who wants to express herself through it then it's fine right? If the end result is the same, what's the problem? This sounds very bigoted. "Only women should write and design women".

 

[partyphone]

They're telling us how it's wrong and it should be changed. Censorship isn't necessarily throwing books in a fire.

That's not censorship. We're not forcibly blocking content.

By your twisted definition of the word what you're doing is censorship of our censorship.

 

[Brakke]

I am pretty sure women game more now than ever before. Things will change and evolve. As women become a larger demo devs will be more cautious as to how they portray them. Ultimately the market will fix this, it always does.

lol

It's pretty to think so.

 

[Jado]

What environment of GTA? Be specific, there are shit tons of environments in GTA.

I'm referring to the overall mood or setting evoked in games like GTA, not a specific place on the map. You described the inclusion of the material in question as "create believeable/realistic open worlds" and has "a place in terms of immersion." I'm telling you that's not really true. Never mind the best of Hollywood's depiction of adult lifestyles; even critically-panned movies like Showgirls look amazing next to the SHIT in video games you think is so realistic and immersive.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

I personally don't care, since I don't engage with the mechanic anyway, but I guess I would just ask the same question back though - why does it matter to you that it stays in the game?

To be quite honest if it wasn't in there I wouldn't care, but the fact that people would want it taken out would actually frustrate me.

 

[Superflat]

Seems like 1 step forward, 2 steps back.

The first half of the video is pretty good, and informative.

The second half seems really disingenuous.

Huh. Didn't realize it but I think that's been a pattern when watching the Tropes series. I find myself nodding and actually being interested in what she's saying at the start, but then the video starts pulling the weird stuff out in the latter half. I don't want to accuse it of being sneaky by doing that, but it is strange that by the end of the video, my impression is usually kinda negative.

 

[ReignofSparrows]

That's just an opinion, no actual data to be found there. It's simply promotes the idea of women as victim and men as oppresors. Pretty much everywhere in the US men are considered guilty until proven innocent when it comes to accusations of violence towards women. Men are even being expelled out of colleges without any actual investigations taking place.

That's just an opinion. No actual data found.

 

[Brakke]

That's just an opinion, no actual data to be found there. It's simply promotes the idea of women as victim and men as oppresors. Pretty much everywhere in the US men are considered guilty until proven innocent when it comes to accusations of violence towards women. Men are even being expelled out of colleges without any actual investigations taking place.

ok.

EDIT:

That's just an opinion. No actual data found.

hah I got beat.

 

[Deleted member 20920]

Not being cheeky or anything, but I don't know what the implication of your statement is. Characters are creations so they will never have agency. They don't choose to be modest or good human beings either. How they are presented and written is who they are, right?

How is this an argument? None of the characters have any actual real choice, they are not even real. How does a woman in real life who wants to dress sexually differ from a woman in a game who wants to dress sexually. Why does it's "purpose" matter? The end result is the same.

Yeah you're right about my statement. It does sound strange after re-reading it.
But I was talking about his accusation against the other poster, saying that that poster was slut shaming because he mentioned "more women pornstar posters" exist as compared to "quality women" ones and that he had a problem with the ratio of representation. What I really wanted to say was that the women in these posters are products of the minds of advertisers and are deliberately made to be sexual objects. It is not the same as calling out women who want to dress sexily or to flaunt their sexuality. The latter have agencies because they're real while the portrayals of sexy women in posters are based off the agencies and purposes of the people who designed them. So calling out on sexy posters being bad representations of women is not the same as slut shaming.

EDIT: Granted, the use of terms such as "quality women" and "pornstar posters" does make the poster seem like he is doing some judging in some ways.

 

[Salsa]

I feel like a lot of her complaints on this particular video come from the source material the games are based on, not the games themselves.

I mean, complaining about a cowboy rescuing a girl in a videogame, where that's pretty much what happens in every cowboy movie/type of media ever, is kinda reaching... in any case the problem goes further back

not that a game couldnt change that, but it wasnt gonna happen in fucking sunset riders

 

[Basketball]

You're playing a video game about running people over, everything about it is pointless, why does it matter to you so much if it is in there?

I personally don't care, since I don't engage with the mechanic anyway, but I guess I would just ask the same question back though - why does it matter to you that it stays in the game?

This Is a standoff

 

[Shizuka]

I like her series, but I'm not feeling this video. I almost slept halfway in.

 

[hateradio]

I actually really dislike when games have these kinds of scenarios.

I was really surprised that players could tie up and kill a prostitute by train in Red Dead Redemption. That was way too much.

I don't think the point Anita was trying to make was "sexiness = bad."

Unfortunately, that's really missing the point.

 

[Cymbal Head]

Just got home from work, about to start the video, but first I wanted to say: thank you for the magnificent OP.

 

[firehawk12]

This Is a standoff

Pretty much. lol

To be quite honest if it wasn't in there I wouldn't care, but the fact that people would want it taken out would actually frustrate me.

I guess I would ask if you are frustrated by the other things they've taken out of GTA3/VC/SA and GTAIV when they made GTAV?
Do you want Trevor to call you up every five minutes because he wants to go bowling with you?

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

That's not censorship. We're not forcibly blocking content.

By your twisted definition of the word what you're doing is censorship of our censorship.

They want to narrow the scope of ideas because they find them offensive. This is exactly why freedom of speech laws exist. Not everybody supports this extremism, fortunately.

That's just an opinion. No actual data found.

So now I have to prove a negative right? lol. You claim it's harmful, prove it. Otherwise there's no reason to assume it is.

 

[ChawlieTheFair]

I'm referring to the overall mood or setting evoked in games like GTA, not a specific place on the map. You described the inclusion of the material in question as "create believeable/realistic open worlds" and has "a place in terms of immersion." I'm telling you that's not really true. Never mind the best of Hollywood's depiction of adult lifestyles; even critically-panned movies like Showgirls look amazing next to the SHIT in video games you think is so realistic and immersive.

I don't get what you mean with this? There are prostitutes in GTA, games based off of real cities which have prostitutes in them.

I guess I would ask if you are frustrated by the other things they've taken out of GTA3/VC/SA and GTAIV when they made GTAV?
Do you want Trevor to call you up every five minutes because he wants to go bowling with you?

Not the same thing and you know it. Sure there are things I would like to be in GTAV that are not in there that were in the previous games, but taking out something from a game( content wise) that's already released for the sake of other people to feel better is stupid.

 

[SmokyDave]

I actually really dislike when games have these kinds of scenarios.

I was really surprised that players could tie up and kill a prostitute by train in Red Dead Redemption. That was way too much.

It's a game featuring a gunslinger, a lasso, a train track, and dames. If you couldn't tie a chick up and leave her on the tracks, the designers have failed.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

It's a game featuring a gunslinger, a lasso, a train track, and dames. If you couldn't tie a chick up and leave her on the tracks, the designers have failed.

Uh... okay...

 

[partyphone]

They want to narrow the scope of ideas because they find them offensive. This is exactly why freedom of speech laws exist. Not everybody supports this extremism, fortunately.

That's not what this video series is about at all. It's about raising awareness of sexism in video games with the hope of broadening the types of content we see in them. No one is calling for anything to be banned. Sexism is being criticized.

Freedom of speech laws typically only apply to governments, by the way. At least here in the US. Not that many other places have anything like our First Amendment.