Support NeoGAF

[Lime]

It's just a very ideologically-driven conversation. It's difficult to talk about anything here other than misogyny, I guess. That's an important topic, I agree, but it makes for a hostile environment when you try to talk about something else or suggest that it isn't the root cause of this situation.

The problem is that misogyny is rooted and tied to anything related to Gamergate. Which isn't the fault of the posters in this thread, but the people who are harassing and threatening women in video games in the name of Gamergate, ever since this thing started.

It's ok to keep talking about that, certainly. I just wanted to chime in because someone linked Totilo's article and I thought it was really good and would help heal some of these wounds.

Again, please tell me how Totilo's statement has anything to do with Gamergate?

I think the more moderate side of GG has had a positive effect over at Kotaku. They are moving into a less hype machine model of reporting, which has been a big issue for a lot of people in recent years. If the ant-GG crowd differentiates the moderates from the trolls, they could combine voices with the moderates and perhaps help make more games more inclusive with a larger collective voice.

How has GG had an effect on Totilo's statement?

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

Who is she? What did she do/talk about?

She's a woman that produces videos and articles about sexism in gaming and gaming culture. I don't agree with a lot of her arguments as they rely on completely ignoring how men are depicted in video games as well, but she does get people at least talking about the issues.

I haven't seen anything from her that I would consider intentionally poisonous, but that's how a very vocal component of the internet sees her.

 

[partyphone]

She's a woman that produces videos and articles about sexism in gaming and gaming culture. I don't agree with a lot of her arguments as they rely on completely ignoring how men are depicted in video games as well, but she does get people at least talking about the issues.

this is a really weird complaint that I see a lot. she's not ignoring men. she's making videos about the depiction of women. that's the subject. by your logic she's ignoring a great many things. like race or ethnicity or nationality or religion or age. I don't see how focusing on a single topic, especially in this case, invalidates any of her arguments. it just seems like you want to criticize her without looking like a sexist.

 

[Abelian75]

Again, please tell me how Totilo's statement has anything to do with Gamergate?

I feel like I did? I think that there was an unhealthy disconnect between the perspective of gamers and those who write for them. Part of that disconnect is that the press was focusing on games that had yet to be released, and stopped caring about them after a casual playthrough to write a review. Totilo is moving his site more toward focusing on playing games alongside consumers, bringing their perspectives more closely in line with each other.

I'm not saying this is the only problem, but I feel like this disconnect is a large part of what created this massive rift that split open and poured shit onto everyone.

Also, I'm gonna do the "this is my last post here" thing, not to be an annoying jackass, but because it is just a touchy subject and I mostly just wanted to show my support for Totilo and Kotaku, not talk about misogyny. I'll read responses, but I don't think any further posting by me would be constructive. I still love you all, though.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I think Anita's videos aren't very good cause she ignores how spore greatly misrepresented the theory of evolution.

 

[dLMN8R]

She's a woman that produces videos and articles about sexism in gaming and gaming culture. I don't agree with a lot of her arguments as they rely on completely ignoring how men are depicted in video games as well, but she does get people at least talking about the issues.

I haven't seen anything from her that I would consider intentionally poisonous, but that's how a very vocal component of the internet sees her.

She's not "ignoring men". She doesn't talk about men because she's not trying to say anything about men.

Claims that she's "ignoring men" is yet another example of men trying to insert themselves in conversations where they're not the topic of conversation. If you're actually concerned about the representation of men in video games, then you should start topics or video series' about it, rather than only conveniently bringing it up in the context of people who are trying to talk about women.

That's one of the biggest problems with discussions about this. Men's Rights Activists or whatever. All of their complaints about "mens rights" focus on women rather than men. Their arguments only magically materialize when women start complaining about a lack of representation or unfair treatment. Every single time I hear about "mens rights" it's prefaced by something like "....yes but men get it too".



Men: Stop it. It shows you're insecure. It shows that you really don't understand how the world works, and how in aggregate how much easier you have it than women. Not everything needs to be about you. Not every complaint needs to involve you. If a woman is complaining about something, LISTEN. Don't butt yourself or your gender into it.

Stop trying to make it be about you. Almost everything is already about you. Let it be. And if you're seriously that concerned with the representation of men instead of only trying to be the center of conversation that is not about you, start that conversation yourself rather than latching onto whatever Anita Sarkeesian or anyone else is saying.

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

this is a really weird complaint that I see a lot. she's not ignoring men. she's making videos about the depiction of women. that's the subject. by your logic she's ignoring a great many things. like race or ethnicity or nationality or religion or age. I don't see how focusing on a single topic, especially in this case, invalidates any of her arguments. it just seems like you want to criticize her without looking like a sexist.

Well, first off, thanks for disregarding my conclusion as "weird" despite being valid.

Feminism is about the equality of the sexes, something I do believe in. For example, let's say you're playing Street Fighter 4 with someone and your girlfriend is watching you play. You pick Zangief and your friend picks Chun Li. When the characters come up on the screen, she starts ranting about how sexually objectified Chun is and how horrible the industry is that it allows such things. Meanwhile, Gief is standing there flexing in his speedo and she doesn't even think to acknowledge that.

You don't see the problem with this? You can't claim one half as the primary victims here. That is not feminism. That is an agenda. I'm not even close to being the only person to call Anita out on such things.

I think what she does is important and she should continue to get people talking, but I side with women like Emma Watson that understand the issue of sexual equality must involve how these issues effect both sexes at the same time to create any sort of progress.

That's one of the biggest problems with discussions about this. Men's Rights Activists or whatever. All of their complaints about "mens rights" focus on women rather than men. Their arguments only magically materialize when women start complaining about a lack of representation or unfair treatment. Every single time I hear about "mens rights" it's prefaced by something like "....yes but men get it too".

So your problem is people make the argument that you can't claim a group as uniquely victimized when another group experiences the same issue?

And if both groups are victimized, why not talk about sexuality in gaming in general?

 

[More_Badass]

this is a really weird complaint that I see a lot. she's not ignoring men. she's making videos about the depiction of women. that's the subject. by your logic she's ignoring a great many things. like race or ethnicity or nationality or religion or age. I don't see how focusing on a single topic, especially in this case, invalidates any of her arguments. it just seems like you want to criticize her without looking like a sexist.

I looked up some stuff from her and uh...yeah, basically this

If she's talking about women in games, why would she talk about men? That make no sense. One topic has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

I looked up some stuff from her and uh...yeah, basically this

If she's talking about women in games, why would she talk about men? That make no sense. One topic has nothing to do with the other.

That's like saying you're a feminist, but you're only interested in talking about issues that effect your own gender.

 

[SliceSabre]

Well, first off, thanks for disregarding my conclusion as "weird" despite being valid.

Feminism is about the equality of the sexes, something I do believe in. For example, let's say you're playing Street Fighter 4 with someone and your girlfriend is watching you play. You pick Zangief and your friend picks Chun Li. When the characters come up on the screen, she starts ranting about how sexually objectified Chun is and how horrible the industry is that it allows such things. Meanwhile, Gief is standing there flexing in his speedo and she doesn't even think to acknowledge that.
You don't see the problem with this? You can't claim one half as the primary victims here. That is not feminism. That is an agenda. I'm not even close to being the only person to call Anita out on such things.

I think what she does is important and she should continue to get people talking, but I side with women like Emma Watson that understand the issue of sexual equality must involve how these issues effect both sexes at the same time to create any sort of progress.



So your problem is people make the argument that you can't claim a group as uniquely victimized when another group experiences the same issue?

And if both groups are victimized, why not talk about sexuality in gaming in general?

Didn't you know we men are not allowed to use this argument because it is every man's power fantasy to be a giant Russian bear man with a hairy chest and a mohawk wearing nothing but a speedo and boots?

Its hard to ague about such things when one side steorotypes the other by saying that all men want Zangief to be their power fantasy so it doesn't count but not all woman want to look like Chun-Li.

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

Didn't you know we men are not allowed to use this arguement because it is every man's power fantasy to be a giant Russian bear man with a hairy chest and a mohawk wearing nothing but a speedo and boots?

And 360 suplex sweaty Ryu. Face right next to his crotch.

 

[Lime]

Don't worry, Abelian75, I am certain everyone loves you too <3 <3 <3

That's like saying you're a feminist, but you're only interested in talking about issues that effect your own gender.

If you're making a video series called "Women in video games" then, yes, it would only concern *women* in video games.

It doesn't say "Men in video games" or "Women & Men in video games". It's "Women in video games".

 

[poppedcollar69]

thanks for this thread, i wasn't sure if the gamergate people were crazy cause before this the only stuff i'd read was crazy people arguing with other crazy people.

 

[dLMN8R]

So your problem is people make the argument that you can't claim a group as uniquely victimized when another group experiences the same issue?

And if both groups are victimized, why not talk about sexuality in gaming in general?

My problem is that men try to insert themselves into conversations about the representation of women and harassment of women.

If men actually had a problem of bad representation of harassment, then why is it never brought up until women start talking about it?

If you truly think that "both groups are victimized" and that men have a problem with representation, why don't men ever actually start that conversation themselves? Why must it, in every single case ever, only conveniently come up when there's an active discussion about women?


Both groups are not "victimized" in the same way. It's a completely bunk false equivalence. "Talk about sexuality in general" is a convenient yet flawed way for men to insert themselves into conversations that don't involve them.

 

[jstripes]

The actual issues were the alienation from the gaming press, as I mentioned.

The issue is ownership of gaming. Plain and simple.

Gaming has been "owned" by the stereotypical gamer since its inception, and generally being socially isolated, it was one of the few things they did own. In the past decade that ownership had started to be worn with pride. But the industry has been gradually shifting away from them recently, and more scrutiny is being placed on it for inclusiveness. This is all a reaction to claw back that ownership.

Media toeing the line is all part of ownership.

 

[partyphone]

Well, first off, thanks for disregarding my conclusion as "weird" despite being valid.

Feminism is about the equality of the sexes, something I do believe in. For example, let's say you're playing Street Fighter 4 with someone and your girlfriend is watching you play. You pick Zangief and your friend picks Chun Li. When the characters come up on the screen, she starts ranting about how sexually objectified Chun is and how horrible the industry is that it allows such things. Meanwhile, Gief is standing there flexing in his speedo and she doesn't even think to acknowledge that.

You don't see the problem with this? You can't claim one half as the primary victims here. That is not feminism. That is an agenda. I'm not even close to being the only person to call Anita out on such things.

I think what she does is important and she should continue to get people talking, but I side with women like Emma Watson that understand the issue of sexual equality must involve how these issues effect both sexes at the same time to create any sort of progress.

This would be a nice sentiment in a world where one sex hasn't been systematically oppressed for hundreds of years.

And I'm dismissing your opinion because it lacks substance in addition to being a non sequitur.

I'm not saying there aren't problems with the depiction of men in games. But it's a different problem both in terms of scope and impact. Trying to redefine feminism as only being about equality and proclaiming that not giving equal time to men invalidates any criticism is absurd.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

Oh god, not this again. If you want to go back a couple of pages, the same exact debate happened times and times again. I also remember a mod clearly indicating that this kind of debate is off-topic. We get it, you think you know better than feminists what feminism should be about.

 

[MHWilliams]

Well, first off, thanks for disregarding my conclusion as "weird" despite being valid.

Feminism is about the equality of the sexes, something I do believe in. For example, let's say you're playing Street Fighter 4 with someone and your girlfriend is watching you play. You pick Zangief and your friend picks Chun Li. When the characters come up on the screen, she starts ranting about how sexually objectified Chun is and how horrible the industry is that it allows such things. Meanwhile, Gief is standing there flexing in his speedo and she doesn't even think to acknowledge that.

You don't see the problem with this? You can't claim one half as the primary victims here. That is not feminism. That is an agenda. I'm not even close to being the only person to call Anita out on such things.

I think what she does is important and she should continue to get people talking, but I side with women like Emma Watson that understand the issue of sexual equality must involve how these issues effect both sexes at the same time to create any sort of progress.

So your problem is people make the argument that you can't claim a group as uniquely victimized when another group experiences the same issue?

And if both groups are victimized, why not talk about sexuality in gaming in general?

You have your Zangief, your Rufus, Ryu, Akuma, Dhalsim. A wide variety of presentations, sexual in nature and un-sexual. The women? Yeah, they're all pretty sexy.

Even the game you're using as an example is an apt point as to what people are talking about.

There's nothing particularly wrong with Chun-Li, Cammy, Sakura, and co. being what they are, but there's way more room for the Tiny Tinas, Sakura Ogami, and the like.

The problem is when you have the whole pool to play with, and for one gender you tend to stay in the shallow end.

But again, we've been over this and it's not really about Gamergate. Anita is doing videos on a specific topic. That's it.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I think we were adviced to make a seperate topic about stuff like this as it's not specific to GG.

 

[Mister Wilhelm]

Both groups are not "victimized" in the same way. It's a completely bunk false equivalence. "Talk about sexuality in general" is a convenient yet flawed way for men to insert themselves into conversations that don't involve them.

I disagree, but I'm not going to go any further with this. It's just so frustrating to even try to debate because people just have their minds made up. And as someone pointed out, the mods don't want it here. I haven't been following this thread that much, so I didn't see that.

 

[partyphone]

I disagree, but I'm not going to go any further with this. It's just so frustrating to even try to debate because people just have their minds made up. And as someone pointed out, the mods don't want it here. I haven't been following this thread that much, so I didn't see that.

Then let's bring it back to gamergate. Do you see a trend in their specific targets? It's not the most egalitarian of hate campaigns.

 

[zeldablue]

Well, first off, thanks for disregarding my conclusion as "weird" despite being valid.

Feminism is about the equality of the sexes, something I do believe in. For example, let's say you're playing Street Fighter 4 with someone and your girlfriend is watching you play. You pick Zangief and your friend picks Chun Li. When the characters come up on the screen, she starts ranting about how sexually objectified Chun is and how horrible the industry is that it allows such things. Meanwhile, Gief is standing there flexing in his speedo and she doesn't even think to acknowledge that.

You don't see the problem with this? You can't claim one half as the primary victims here. That is not feminism. That is an agenda. I'm not even close to being the only person to call Anita out on such things.

I think what she does is important and she should continue to get people talking, but I side with women like Emma Watson that understand the issue of sexual equality must involve how these issues effect both sexes at the same time to create any sort of progress.



So your problem is people make the argument that you can't claim a group as uniquely victimized when another group experiences the same issue?

And if both groups are victimized, why not talk about sexuality in gaming in general?

Yikes.

First. I think it's important to talk about both men and women at the same time. Men are deathly afraid of the feminine...so it's important to bring it up as well. Right? These games DO show a lack of empathy towards men and teach people to show hostility or apathy towards men who show feminine attributes (eg: cowardice, vulnerability, sadness, fear, nurturance, emotion etc.) That's an important topic in feminism. How men relate to the feminine in themselves and in other men is important and the only way to make people realize men and women are the same. Men show misandristic qualities every time they terrify each other with homophobic slurs, just as women show misogynistic qualities every time they terrify each other with slut shaming.

On the topic of sexualization, everything has cultural and symbolic connotations. We have a long history of representing people as being tied to limiting human characteristics. Humans enjoy finding patterns, and those patterned often over-generalize, and screw us over. Blackness means poverty, and savagery. Youth means innocence and purity. Women mean sex and nurturance. Men mean...everything and anything they want to be. That's the problem. You can't find a women that isn't attached to cultural assumptions and stereotypes. A man's body can be scientific, humorous, athletic, artistic, sexual or disgusting. A woman's body can only be sexual or disgusting. That's the cultural perception we have that we can't shake off. And that is the perception that people try to fight against...(Even if feminists often do it in a rather sexist way themselves. :\)

Most human fears, and all social anxieties are tied to the fear of social isolation. At the core, all topics of gender will trigger the part of our minds that is primally scared to death of social rejection and isolation. That is the core reason why this situation is so insanely awful.

 

[dLMN8R]

I disagree, but I'm not going to go any further with this. It's just so frustrating to even try to debate because people just have their minds made up. And as someone pointed out, the mods don't want it here. I haven't been following this thread that much, so I didn't see that.

You disagree with the premise that women have been horrifically victimized by all of society for hundreds of years in ways that men cannot even begin to imagine? That still today in media, women are incredibly underrepresented? And that when women are represented at all, it's almost always in offensive, trope-filled ways? And that women in various industries who do manage to reach some sort of public notoriety receive a hugely proportionally higher amount of harassment than men in similar positions?


Then why do you not happen to care about it until women start talking about it?

 

[SwissLion]

Female Characters are designed to cater to the Male Gaze, often this is their defining trait. That's problematic.

No matter how naked Zangeif gets, he was never designed to cater to some equal and opposite Female Gaze.

When you break it down it's pretty simple.

 

[Kris Pistofferson]

Feminism is about the equality of the sexes, something I do believe in. For example, let's say you're playing Street Fighter 4 with someone and your girlfriend is watching you play. You pick Zangief and your friend picks Chun Li. When the characters come up on the screen, she starts ranting about how sexually objectified Chun is and how horrible the industry is that it allows such things. Meanwhile, Gief is standing there flexing in his speedo and she doesn't even think to acknowledge that.

The difference is that Zangief isn't 'sexy'. Zangief is a power fantasy for men and not a sex object for women. The Street Fighter series would be played almost exclusively by women and gay men if that argument held water because muscular men is what most of the characters are.

An actually apt example would have been Patrick Galloway in Undying. He was originally supposed to be a muscular bald guy but Clive Barker (who is openly gay) wanted 'someone he would sleep with'. And that character is way off the usual character types we see in gaming.

 

[dLMN8R]

The difference is that Zangief isn't 'sexy'. Zangief is a power fantasy for men and not a sex object for women. The Street Fighter series would be played almost exclusively by women and gay men if that argument held water because muscular men is what most of the characters are.

An actually apt example would have been Patrick Galloway in Undying. He was originally supposed to be a muscular bald guy but Clive Barker (who is openly gay) wanted 'someone he would sleep with'.

Thank you for describing in one sentence what I took paragraphs to try to explain.

 

[tonysidaway]

We've had over a page of mansplaining about feminism. Let's move on.

 

[securitypigeon]

You know, Zangief might just be sexy to someone who finds Zangief sexy. Worth bearing that in mind.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

You know, Zangief might just be sexy to someone who finds Zangief sexy. Worth bearing that in mind.

There's people who find Dr.Robotnik sexy.

Spoiler

Or anything posted in the awesome fanart thread, really.

 

[Nephrahim]

You know, Zangief might just be sexy to someone who finds Zangief sexy. Worth bearing that in mind.

This. I have trouble when people describe definitively what is considered "Sexy" for women, because in my experience it's a much more nebulous concept then most guys (At least, for me it is, maybe that's my bias.)

I know girls who find, well, not Zangief, but men with designs similar, very sexy.

 

[Deleted member 126221]

This. I have trouble when people describe definitively what is considered "Sexy" for women, because in my experience it's a much more nebulous concept then most guys (At least, for me it is, maybe that's my bias.)

I know girls who find, well, not Zangief, but men with designs similar, very sexy.

Come on, it's obvious Chun Li, Cammy and co. were designed to be sexy while Zangief was not. Yeah, maybe someone will find him sexy, but someone might also find Mario sexy, that doesn't mean he was designed with sex appeal in mind...!

 

[securitypigeon]

There's people who find Dr.Robotnik sexy.

Spoiler

Or anything posted in the awesome fanart thread, really.

I'm just saying there's plenty of women out there who would see him on a box art or whatever and find him sexy. He's a buff, fleshy tough guy, after all.

 

[MHWilliams]

So Re/Code just did it's own look at GamerGate and how Intel entered the picture. Standard overview, much like Vox.

I'm also interested in Erik Kain's YouTube talk with Greg Tito, editor-in-chief of The Escapist, Janelle Bonanno, editor-in-chief of GameFront, and TotalBiscuit on the topic, even if I don't completely agree with certain topics. It's odd to read the comments and see how many disagree with Tito's rather common sense points.

 

[securitypigeon]

Come on, it's obvious Chun Li, Cammy and co. were designed to be sexy while Zangief was not. Yeah, maybe someone will find him sexy, but someone might also find Mario sexy, that doesn't mean he was designed with sex appeal in mind...!

Ryu is a good looking guy, Ken is a good looking guy, Guile is a good looking guy...

Spoiler

Blanka...wait.

 

[Kris Pistofferson]

You know, Zangief might just be sexy to someone who finds Zangief sexy. Worth bearing that in mind.

Arsonists get off on fire and sadists get off on suffering. I wouldn't say that games are specifically designed to titillate those types of people. Conversely, sexy women in games are designed to titillate the average male gamer which marks a difference of sexual objectification which the whole debate is about.

Zangief is a bear, by the way.

 

[Nephrahim]

Come on, it's obvious Chun Li, Cammy and co. were designed to be sexy while Zangief was not. Yeah, maybe someone will find him sexy, but someone might also find Mario sexy, that doesn't mean he was designed with sex appeal in mind...!

I'm not saying he was designed to be sexy to girls. I don't think he was designed for that reason, SF2 was not marketed toward girls. But that doesn't mean he might not accomplish that by accident.

And now I'm curious, what would a character made to be sexy for women look like in SF? Vega? Ken? Hakan?

 

[securitypigeon]

Arsonists get off on fire and sadists get off on suffering. I wouldn't say that games are specifically designed to titillate those types of people. Conversely, sexy women in games are designed to titillate the average male gamer which marks a difference of sexual objectification which the whole debate is about.

Zangief is a bear, by the way.

Sure they are, but let's not act like the majority of the dudes are drawn to be disgusting by comparison. And I do know the point is that it's a straight young male who will be titilated at the women and not the men.

What's so bad about Chun Li anyway? She's a tough, attractive and capable woman. Having grown up playing Street Fight II on the SNES, I was attracted to her, yes, but never felt her existence degraded her status as a female (or of any others, fictional or otherwise). Sex appeal doesn't always equate to oppression. As a male, I wanted to be like Ryu because he was also tough, attractive and capable.

 

[zeldablue]

I'm not saying he was designed to be sexy to girls. I don't think he was designed for that reason, SF2 was not marketed toward girls. But that doesn't mean he might not accomplish that by accident.

And now I'm curious, what would a character made to be sexy for women look like in SF? Vega? Ken? Hakan?

Lots of anime-esque games are big with girls. We like a lot of cute stuff. Start making the guys cuter and then we'll talk. A lot of fan artists are girls...just look at what they're drawing, I guess.

I just beat Hyrule Warriors...and I think that game was made specifically for Zelda fangirls. Fan fiction fuel...everywhere.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

That's odd. I wrote a thing about it as well and everything seems fine. TB started the whole thing and he's firmly pro-GG.

People still think he gave Depression Quest a positive review because he was sleeping with the developer. For people just joining us, there was no review. If I recall, he mentioned the game once in an article about a game jam or something, before they were in a relationship.
What makes it kind of funny, what makes it kind of sad, is that one of ggate's mantras is "it's not about Zoe Quinn, it's about ethics".

This is also funny.
Anyway, to discuss this actual thing; I think it's fine, as long as it's made abundantly clear that it's a paid advertisement. The language (sponsored, promoted) marketing firms encourage in order to obfuscate the fact that it is a paid advertisement should go away. It should say "PAID ADVERTISEMENT", unmissable, at the top/start of articles/videos. In cases where agreeing to a brand deal is the only way of getting early access, not getting honest impressions from youtubers before games are released would still be crappy, and PR firms should stop it with that, but at least you'd know to pour a bag of salt on Youtube videos and to wait until the game's actually out.

I think for traditional games media, review events is a decent enough analogy in terms of doing a disservice to your audience. Reviews are not being conducted under normal conditions, it's all controlled by the publisher. Especially after Battlefield 4 I don't trust those reviews at all.

Integrity is nice if you can afford it. But just say I'm a fan of M.H.Williams. I ask him why he hasn't reviewed Bubsy 3 and he says because he was too ethical to take the plane trip to the in-house review on the Publishers dime. Who loses in this scenario? I lose because I don't get to read my favourite reviewers opinion. He loses because a popular game is not reviewed on his site. The publishers lose because their game isn't covered to potential buyers. Paying for reviews is a different matter and I certainly wouldn't trust one that was paid for. It's shades of grey and comes down to winning the trust of your readers.

You wait for the site to get access to the game through other means. Review may be published after the game's out, which shouldn't be a problem for you personally, but is for the site because timeliness matters in terms of page views. I can understand why sites go to these events, but feel they shouldn't. Ultimately I guess this. Publishers can do this because the market enables them, i.e. stop pre-ordering. The least I ask of games media though is to make clear the terms/conditions under which the game was reviewed. Some sites failed to do this with BF4.

Haggar is sexier than Zangief.

 

[Xscapist]

The issue is ownership of gaming. Plain and simple.

Gaming has been "owned" by the stereotypical gamer since its inception, and generally being socially isolated, it was one of the few things they did own. In the past decade that ownership had started to be worn with pride. But the industry has been gradually shifting away from them recently, and more scrutiny is being placed on it for inclusiveness. This is all a reaction to claw back that ownership.

Media toeing the line is all part of ownership.

What I don't get about the sense of ownership or sense of social isolation the stereotypical gamer feels is that games were never considered as geeky or nerdy as tabletop role playing or comics books after the late '70s or early '80s. I grew up during the NES era, and I remember everyone I knew playing games back then, whether consoles or arcades.

There was a stereotype of comic book readers or D&Ders being males who lived in the basement, but video games? Everyone likes video games. The only time I heard the supposed gamer stereotype come up (until somewhat recently) was among other gamers on the internet. Am I the only one? Or were kids in school looked down on for gaming after the SNES/Genesis generation?

 

[thesaucetastic]

Mandatory read related to Gamergate:
http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point

Holy shit, the latter half of this. God damn, there is no justice.

 

[Phocks]

Lots of anime-esque games are big with girls. We like a lot of cute stuff. Start making the guys cuter and then we'll talk. A lot of fan artists are girls...just look at what they're drawing, I guess.

I just beat Hyrule Warriors...and I think that game was made specifically for Zelda fangirls. Fan fiction fuel...everywhere.

If you haven't seen Japanese games with cute guys yet you're doing something wrong.

 

[Kris Pistofferson]

Sure they are, but let's not act like the majority of the dudes are drawn to be disgusting by comparison. And I do know the point is that it's a straight young male who will be titilated at the women and not the men.

What's so bad about Chun Li anyway? She's a tough, attractive and capable woman. Having grown up playing Street Fight II on the SNES, I was attracted to her, yes, but never felt her existence degraded her status as a female (or of any others, fictional or otherwise). Sex appeal doesn't always equate to oppression. I wanted to be like Ryu because he was always, tough, attractive and capable.

I know what you're getting at because I've never considered Chun Li degrading to women. I was a hormone driven teenager when SF2 came out but I never found Chun Li 'sexy' either. She's just the example being used here.

 

[Nephrahim]

Lots of anime-esque games are big with girls. We like a lot of cute stuff. Start making the guys cuter and then we'll talk. A lot of fan artists are girls...just look at what they're drawing, I guess.

I just beat Hyrule Warriors...and I think that game was made specifically for Zelda fangirls. Fan fiction fuel...everywhere.

What does Cute mean though? Are we talking Ky Kiske? Valkenhayn?

 

[Kris Pistofferson]

Lots of anime-esque games are big with girls. We like a lot of cute stuff. Start making the guys cuter and then we'll talk. A lot of fan artists are girls...just look at what they're drawing, I guess.

I just beat Hyrule Warriors...and I think that game was made specifically for Zelda fangirls. Fan fiction fuel...everywhere.

Link is also a gay icon. See Patrick Galloway above.

 

[zeldablue]

If you haven't seen Japanese games with cute guys yet you're doing something wrong.

Well yeah. doesn't the Tales of Series have a more dedicated female audience than male? Wasn't Kingdom Hearts II really going for the fangirl crowd?

There are definitely games out there that doll up the guys. And it's a major selling point for girls. Without a doubt.

Link is also a gay icon. See Patrick Galloway above.

I'm aware. Link is part of the reason I'm a gigantic Zelda fan. I love him to death. @___@

I think Koizumi's wife wanted Link to be a bishonen...and then he was like "fine..."

 

[Kris Pistofferson]

I'm aware. Link is part of the reason I'm a gigantic Zelda fan. I love him to death. @___@

Now picture Link in a thong.

Takes away the charm, doesn't it?

 

[Nephrahim]

Now picture Link in a thong.

Takes away the charm, doesn't it?

I was going to ask about chest hair, but he is an Elf, so I suppose we know.

 

[zeldablue]

Now picture Link in a thong.

Takes away the charm, doesn't it?

Yeah. That would make me really angry.

There's a big difference between attraction and objectification. :S

 

[meijiko]

Link is also a gay icon. See Patrick Galloway above.

Christ why did I look at the comments on that.