Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Zoe Quinn Conspiracy..

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TheSelfishGene View Post
    Gonna link any evidence this time?
    First result on google. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcPIu3sDkEw

    And a linked video from it showing her attempting to hide it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUxVEU-7zb4
    Last edited by Dracarys; 09-04-2014, 05:42 AM.
    Beanovsky Durst - "They are not pervs. They are japanese."

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Dracarys View Post
      Ok, her initial kickstarter was for equipment, research materials etc to make the videos. That was her defence for why she needed 5k for making videos.
      No she didn't. In fact the only time she mentions cost was by saying "Creating these videos take a lot of time and money to produce" which depending on your expectations/opinion so far in this thread is either correct or has a limit of time over money costs (and also a lack of breakdown of what those costs really are, although that's a problem with Kickstarter funding across the board). In the video that came with the pitch she expanded on what the cost and time was used for. Not once was equipment mentioned, so I'm unsure where you think you saw this.

      That is one of the major reasons her initial dislike started, that it was a dodgy kickstarter, the difference between hers and some others that get criticised is that she then threw out the sexist gamers defence which just pissed off a lot of and really got the hate train rolling.
      Yeah I get that's happened since, however her "initial dislike" started years before the kickstarter, years before she asked for any donations, back when she posted a bunch of videos commenting on films, toys, and other media which she was doing for free. Again providing point that it wasn't a need for anything like a dishonest kickstarter, or asking for money, to get people complaining about a feminist with an opinion but simply just peoples problems with someone having an opinion.

      Also clearly things like this have only do with her being a scam artist and nothing else right?

      Click image for larger version

Name:	Screen Shot 2012-07-06 at 09_54_27.png
Views:	1
Size:	322.7 KB
ID:	403755

      Thank you for answering the questions for me Drac, I just wanted a simple actual answer from people on things that people have been skirting around in here focusing on scams and kickstarters and the like. However...

      No, I think there is sexism in gaming related to both men and women.
      ...and, can you explain further on this from your opinion, because I'd say while anyone would agree there is sexist content either way in anything, to me the amount is definitely lopsided towards women. What's your opinion on it personally, hell I guess at that point then I ask, do you even care? I suspect a little or else you wouldn't get upset about people making commentary with what you see as founded on a bunch of lies (in regards to the kickstarter etc.)

      Originally posted by Wrathborne View Post
      Well if thats how you feel, then I am completely right and justified in my calling Anita scam artist taking advantage of a longstanding media marketing issue, because you already vilified me you've only proven my point further because this is your response to my criticism of Anita, which you've shown you have some trouble with. Using your previous argument as an example, wont do this again in this response.
      Ugh. You don't have to label everything, that's part of the issue in this entire thread is that everyone seems to believe that everyone else has an agenda behind everything they say. There was never any intent to 'vilify' you with that statement, just simply to ask if you couldn't see a potential parallel to your earlier blanket statement excusing the people of the internet for just acting the way they did because it's the internet without actually questioning why you'd even have to make that statement. I also don't believe you would actually have said that in regards to the nude photo leak, I was however only just taking your earlier response and placing it against a situation with some similar circumstances. If you were offended then I do apologize, I probably could have worded it better.

      You're saying that the internet and trolling/bad behavior dont go hand in hand? Activities like swatting, scamming, hacking, identity theft, and government cyber intrusion are the norm. I wish it wasn't, but I have no say in this. Not unless I'm a wealthy government organization I suppose.

      Yep. I hate this paparazzi shit BTW.

      People get treated like shit, because the internet is filled with thousands and thousands of unscrupulous shitty people.It HAS become a norm, whether you're aware of this or not. And it happens to everyone, not just women out there promoting themselves, instead of what they claim to be promoting. Its an issue with credibility.

      I'm not defending internet trolling dude, you're missing the point, I'm saying that this isn't uncommon and it isn't something so bizarre, sexist or out of the norm. Its something that we all need to thicken our skin at while we try to find ways to deal with it other than publicizing "how evil the internet is" and glamorizing the victims/"victims". Some people are legitimate victims and there are legitimate people out there who need help. Anita Sarkeesian is not one of them.
      No, I didn't say they don't go hand and hand seemingly, even though I wish that wasn't the case either, but what I was asking is how can you could seemingly justify it much easier rather than question why people act their worst on the internet behind the false pretense of anonymity. My first response personally is never 'oh well, thats internet being internet' - it's why do a bunch of people think they can be the most disgusting and worst people on the planet just because they're behind a computer screen. An no, I never said it was just women... I'd be ignorant to believe that was the case, however I think I can easily state that women on the internet are often targeted much worse on top of any other issues as well.

      Also...

      I'm not defending internet trolling dude, you're missing the point, I'm saying that this isn't uncommon and it isn't something so bizarre, sexist or out of the norm
      Conflicting sentence is conflicting. I don't think I missed your earlier point at all. However I know generally we will agree here that it's not good but it exists... so I'm glad you finally said something positive in that you wish it wasn't like that, but now I question why I had to coax a response out of you and it took a whole page of discussion to discuss something I talked about in my first reply to you. But I'm glad we at least seemingly agree on something in here.

      And as for Zoe shes been caught staging harassment on 4/chan(as she did previous with wiz/chan, despite the evidence being overlooked because all the gaming journalism outlets were friends with Zoe.) and shes continuing to get support from sites out there despite being a shady player in a corrupt system.
      Trust me when I say for one minute, both of you, that I don't doubt for one second that there are women on the internet purporting the same levels of crap as the anyone else. However again this deflects away from the point right at the start again that women in general are still likely to be attacked by men for just being women on the internet, and even worse should they bring any level of attention to themselves.

      Whoa, wait a minute there Bud, what do you mean we cant separate her opinions from her issues from the point in her videos? You mean we cant separate her, from her opinions that she makes in her videos about her criticisms with video games?
      Well considering you and Drac both spent much time and energy discussing the fact her videos were a scam rather than the content within and what that means to how people are treated on the internet, I'm going to say yes to this right now... however...

      Once more, You're saying that we cant desperate her from her opinions? Where do her opinions comes from in not from her own beliefs, a six legged cabbage tree? Shes presenting her opinion on issues she sees as issues against women, right? I don't see this as that big of an issue against women, you know what I see as issues against women?

      I see the GOP slandering womens importance in society, the military, and the work place as an issue. I see the military covering up the thousands of cases of rape against both men and women, as an issue(ore women than men are still raped in the military, but it doesn't change the issue itself). I see politicians slander women who are pro-choice and women who want to marry women are an issue. These are legitimate problems and issues that should be given more attention than they are.
      ...it took me seemingly pushing your buttons to get an actual response that was bigger than the whole picture. Do you not see the irony of this? Look at how this topic began. YOU posted a thread in which YOU took focus on the downfall of one woman. I came in here and said there is a much bigger picture to this in regards to how women are treated in general and now you tell ME there are even bigger legitimate problems in the world. Yes, hell fucking yes. Thank you. This is all I wanted to say and discuss. In the end one woman's stupid mistakes on the internet are nothing compared to bigger gender inequality issues. And all round your statement I agree with.

      I see how women are represented in video games as a constant irritation when its a badly written female character who is a trope. Because in the end, its still the same marketing gimmick used in comics, movies, and TV. THIS is where the issue is, and where the blame should be aimed at. Yet from the perspective Anita, and the gaming journalism trolls that are supporting her, the real problem comes down to the people who play these games and not the practice itself.

      Your assumption that I'm pro-trolling/lax on trolling on the internet and implying that I'm anti women is really telling Rombie. I'm more than willing to disagree with you, or anyone else here, because its a disagreement. Yet you're taking it farther than that and passive aggressively stating "I'm just using your own argument against you", well is my argument that good that yours wasn't worth using to begin with? Is it more important to make me eat my own words than just say "Dude, sorry, I can't agree with that because "blank" and I honestly feel that "blank". Because we dont need that passive aggressive stuff here, we're all on the same side for the most part.
      Well no, actually it was because when I came in here and responded to your original post on the point of talking about the sort of video you posted, general behaviour of people of the internet, and generally stuff in that direction with the backdrop of how women are treated, we instead spent most of an entire page talking about scams and kickstarter... so I can only respond on what I'm given. My point hardly had anything to do with this, so I can only try to respond to what I've got. This is a discussion though, so if you're not happy about the direction or the way it's playing out, you're welcome to say you've had enough - as am I. On that point I will cease discussing the kickstarter scam angle thing for you (and I) because given your next set of replies we're going around in circles and just should agree to disagree. Because
      If you're asking for legitimate evidence, thats something different, and I'm afraid I've none to offer :/
      certainly tells you we're both just going to be stating an opinion and nothing more.

      EXACTLY! Yes this is not a bad thing, an outsiders opinion is never a bad thing...But why did she lie about being a gamer in the kickstarter to begin with? Again this also hits her credibility.

      (and later) Shes already shown shes not that credible a person.
      Fair enough call. I'm not disputing the video evidence of her statements about being a gamer, nor would I post the picture of her with the mountains of games because I don't know the background of that pic... she could just be at someones house. There is no evidence those are games she purchased.

      This is true, however I'm not going to lie, I find her scripts with the arguments and the evidence she uses to not be that difficult to piece together, and not really that difficult to write a script around. Shes up to video 5 now, and its been 2 years since the kickstarter I think...She should seriously be a lot farther along.

      For her to put out 3 videos a year, she would have to spend 3 months or so of research, 1 month of shooting and editing and I don't think shes putting out that much work into this. Writing a script is a terribly daunting process that consumes you, I know I've been doing it for 12 years and have headed back to school because I need to brush up.

      But this is for writing a movie. Shes doing 20 minute pieces about her opinion on a subject, or sub-subject of said subject. While its not as difficult as a movie, I honestly cant see her putting more than maybe 4-5 weeks on each of these scripts.

      That being said 5 videos in 2 years is still not establishing much in the way of her credibility. Is she literally going to put out 3-4 videos in a year while still collecting donations and ad revenue from youtube? This sounds more like a business than a cause when I think about it(she is a blogger afterall).
      This is subjective and and from your opinion, so I can't agree or disagree. All I can tell you that when I used to cut 3-4 minute promo reels for companies it would take me a week on average but they had no script. I cut a 1 hour long history reel once for a company, I had 120+ hours of footage, and it took 3 months or so on a five-day-week each week. If I have to do research I suspect it'll be longer on a project. For a 20-30 minute long video every few months, especially if you're doing it for yourself on your own time, I could personally imagine that's a reasonable length of time myself... but that's from my point of view.

      Yeah this is where we differ, but agree. You're right, she hasnt taken the money and run, but shes running this like a business. Not a cause. A cause is something you believe in fully and regardless of the price you pay. Adding a pricetag to it before you begin feels insincere and disingenuous.
      Well... thats a hard thing to say. Kickstarter needs a value to any project, any project on there has to give a set amount. There are alternatives out there which allow people to set an uncapped goal and just receive whatever they can. Maybe that would be a better thing for your issue with it. But that said Kickstarter is used because it's the most popular and I guess well trusted.



      Again though, she only asked for a small amount. As Gene already said, anyone who still gave her money above 6K and visited that page for whatever reason knew they didn't have to give money if they didn't. It's like you can't allow for anyone to make their own decision to fund something just because you don't agree with it.


      You're assuming again, and no 5k is not exactly a small amount. If she had asked for $2k for this project, I wouldn't question it. I've already explained why, please dont make me retype or repost what I'd said previously here.
      Sorry, I think you've read that as you "don't agree" with the project. I'm not assuming, I was meaning you don't agree with the budget. You've said several times that you don't agree on the budget that was asked for (and expressed disbelief at the final total). You even just said it again here. Thats all I was meaning, sorry for not being clearer there.

      Naughty Dog has proudly showcased that Anita worked the them of "The last of us" actually and now that her audience has grown due to her kickstarter and support by the yellow journalism in gaming I cant help but see her an emerging "Hayes code" of gaming with all the scumbag journalist and sites that are worshipping her.
      I have seen this. Anita might be dishonest or have other intent, but personally there is still truth to the concepts behind the videos and not just Naughty Dog is responding here, there are companies responding because of the commentary opened both ways. To me I don't agree with everything Anita has said, there are some heavy level views, but it still doesn't take away any tryth women are often background characters, sexual objects, and other such things. Even I took away all of the video content of Anita from her videos and showcased those original source material for those videos in a montage she's used, I think it has enough direct content so show this. But thats just my take on it.

      Your continued passive aggressive assumptions and vilification of me show how black and white you see things in this issue and that you cant look at this from any other perspective than your own. :/ I've looked at this as a gamer, as a filmmaker, as a writer, and I've done my best to look at it from you and Genes perspectives as well. There are good arguments to be made on both sides and in the end we all do agree with eachother on the issue. Yet you're more interested in shaming me because I don't agree with you.-_-
      Well first, actually that (and a few of these things quoted) was a response to Drac... (come back to that in regards to your question) who continued to basically say, paraphrased, that if you're not a gamer then you have no right to make videos in responses to both Gene and I, and so I used the idea was presented that if you did this you were a scam artist. I personally thought that was fairly straight forward comparison myself.

      It did answer the question, but it wasn't the answer you were looking for so now you're disregarding the answer itself. You just had to say " I don't agree with that" and I'd understand completely. I'm not THAT thickheaded.
      No, I covered this above. It certainly didn't answer the question because so much time was spent talking about scams. The question is right there "if you think there is even a reason why someone might want to even make a series like this" - which is why I gave up on trying that tact and instead broke it into the multiple part question which pushed it head on. Which on that note...

      Define sexism in gaming. Do you mean female characters in video games, do you mean against women who play video games, or both?
      Well because you've said so I'd say both. But if you want a definition or a definable question then;
      a) female characters - the excess nature of one dimensional female characters, sexual objects, and lack of leading roles of strong female types in gaming and
      b) women online being often harassed for being nothing more than a woman on the internet playing games

      I don't expect you to answer if you don't want to, but if you can in part to your thoughts on it answer D as well. Is there anything I'm missing now?

      Thank you for your comments on the others, I just wanted to know where we actually stood outside of the kickstarter scam cycle we were stuck in.

      Now answer my question Rombie, through out this argument both Dracarys and I have both taken the opposite viewpoint of yours and Gene. I've provided some evidence in my opinions and tried to be polite about them knowing you and Gene wouldn't agree, and Dracarys chose to be more blunt about how she feels about Anita, calling Anita all kinds of names(not condemning ya Drac, just pointing this out) why between the two of us have you only responded to me, the male critic of Anita who spent a good 20 min-30 minutes to respond to each question and try to not insult you or Gene in anyway while ignoring Dracarys until this final response?

      Is there a reason you've chosen to not question Dracarys opinions on the matter? Was it because she shared most of my opinions or, was it awkward to argue with a female gamer who sees Anita Sarkeesian the same way the male gamer that you chose to vilify in this argument?
      Actually as I mentioned, a large number of those responses above were directed at Drac, and you were only mentioned when you both shared the same viewpoint, and you chose to quote the latter post in response. The other issues I can see is Drac writes much less than you (or I) do, and so there is less to discuss, and I tend not to quote people unless I have a wall of things to respond to. The only personal bias I can wrangle into it is that Drac and I hardly ever agree on most things, usually being on the opposite side of the fence on most topics Ironically I think we might both agree with that. This never has anything to do with gender, it just simply comes down to usual disagreement of opinion.

      You dont honestly have to answer that, because I'm not trying to change you or Genes opinions on Anita. They are what they are and the ironic thing about all this is you'll find we ALL agree on how women are portrayed in the media, but we disagree with one aspect of the issue and thats who is leading it.
      Yeah, you know... I do agree. Maybe that's all that is really left to be said.
      Last edited by Rombie; 09-04-2014, 07:53 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        I have seen this. Anita might be dishonest or have other intent, but personally there is still truth to the concepts behind the videos and not just Naughty Dog is responding here, there are companies responding because of the commentary opened both ways. To me I don't agree with everything Anita has said, there are some heavy level views, but it still doesn't take away any tryth women are often background characters, sexual objects, and other such things. Even I took away all of the video content of Anita from her videos and showcased those original source material for those videos in a montage she's used, I think it has enough direct content so show this. But thats just my take on it.

        Thats all ya needed to say in the first place Good sir!I know I can't change your opinion or convince you that I was right, and vice versa. I maintain Anitas credibility invalidates her opinions, . Granted if I was better at piecing together an argument we wouldn't have had to have gone through all this, so I take the blame for it.


        ...it took me seemingly pushing your buttons to get an actual response that was bigger than the whole picture. Do you not see the irony of this? Look at how this topic began. YOU posted a thread in which YOU took focus on the downfall of one woman. I came in here and said there is a much bigger picture to this in regards to how women are treated in general and now you tell ME there are even bigger legitimate problems in the world. Yes, hell fucking yes. Thank you. This is all I wanted to say and discuss. In the end one woman's stupid mistakes on the internet are nothing compared to bigger gender inequality issues. And all round your statement I agree with.

        All ya had to do was ask Dude, you didn't need to be so passive aggressive! But I will disagree, the thing about Zoe's mistakes is that there are lots of women game developers out there who are legit and doing their damnedest to make it in the industry or help others make it in the industry. Shes very much sullied the title of female game developer, not just because of her actions, but because of how much shes been wearing the title on her sleeve promoting herself along with Gawker, kotaku, polygon etc...

        Not to mention the fact that there is a non-profit group called the fine young capitalists, its a feminist group tackling similar ideas that Anita is, however they're doing a little competition to encourage female game developers on Indiegogo. Basically if a woman wants to make a game, but doesn't have the skills, they get provided by the fine young capitalists(artwork,coding, etc) I believe they're also given a budget as well.

        They tried to get Zoe to help their cause as Zoe was this new up and coming female game developer, and she demanded money(this is a non profit) and when they refused, she said that they were scamming her and then her cronies(Maya Kramer possibly) ended up doxxing them(theres twitter evidence of this). When they tried get this reported by the gaming press, they were ignored.

        This is the champion of female game developers that Kotaku, Polygon, Neogaf, Vice, Gawker,etc is championing and defending -_-. Take away Zoes sleeping around to get ahead in the industry, and this is still just as vile. :/

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Rombie View Post
          No she didn't. In fact the only time she mentions cost was by saying "Creating these videos take a lot of time and money to produce" which depending on your expectations/opinion so far in this thread is either correct or has a limit of time over money costs (and also a lack of breakdown of what those costs really are, although that's a problem with Kickstarter funding across the board). In the video that came with the pitch she expanded on what the cost and time was used for. Not once was equipment mentioned, so I'm unsure where you think you saw this.
          I'm sure it was on twitter or somewhere she said this, I'm sure are youtube videos from people pointing out where but to be honest I cannot be bothered searching through them.

          Yeah I get that's happened since, however her "initial dislike" started years before the kickstarter, years before she asked for any donations, back when she posted a bunch of videos commenting on films, toys, and other media which she was doing for free. Again providing point that it wasn't a need for anything like a dishonest kickstarter, or asking for money, to get people complaining about a feminist with an opinion but simply just peoples problems with someone having an opinion.
          I meant initial dislike from certain gamers. She wasn't even on many of their radar until the kickstarter.

          Also clearly things like this have only do with her being a scam artist and nothing else right?

          -image removed-
          Obviously not, but as I've said in this thread, she isn't a feminist, not in the true sense of the word and the upper right image seems to address that, some others are just insulting.

          ...and, can you explain further on this from your opinion, because I'd say while anyone would agree there is sexist content either way in anything, to me the amount is definitely lopsided towards women. What's your opinion on it personally, hell I guess at that point then I ask, do you even care? I suspect a little or else you wouldn't get upset about people making commentary with what you see as founded on a bunch of lies (in regards to the kickstarter etc.)
          Regarding lopsiding, it really depends what you are focusing on.

          Regarding lead characters there are by far more male characters leading games, but I don't think this is sexist. Even though there are more female gamers than ever you need look at the types of games they play. Fact is, most games are shooters, especially throughout last gen. This is not a popular genre for women, so having male leads to appeal to the demographic that does play shooters most isn't wrong in my eyes.

          Regarding characer visual design. This really depends on the sort of woman playing, Take the original Lara Croft. The original is often highlighted as a sexist exploitative design but many women like how she dresses, is an extremely popular cosplay, sexual freedom is a real thing and the idea that to be respectable as a women you cannot ever be sexy or you're pandering to male values is so false, yet there are plenty of women who will complain of such design (because I'm sure they never dress sexy ever). If you're playing a video game why shouldn't your character be sexy? Of course there is a line between sexy and looking like a tart/slapper but those examples are very few and far between. Male design has its own problems but it doesn't get criticised as much as there isn't a split in male opinion on how they 'should' look or dress like there is with women.

          As to the characters themselves, go back to Lara Croft again, yes she was visibly a 'sex symbol' for gamers but at the same time she showed a lot of positive traits, she was strong, independent, could take care of herself in a fight. Her character wasn't deep by any means yet she had a lot of female fans, but then you look at the new Lara Croft who they tried to give a deep character and she comes across as fractured because she is meant to be this normal down to earth, scared young woman yet kills hundreds of men in a day or so. As to ditzy airhead type characters, well just look at many popular female celebrities, they seem pretty accepted in the real world and have legions of female fans. Why is it bad in games?


          I guess overall I don't care a lot. I think points made for sexism are one sided with female issues just getting a lot more exposure. I think plenty of double standards. I think a lot of points are exaggerated or spun to suit personal agendas and I think there are sides of the argument nobody likes talking about incase they get labled sexist, even if it is a valid argument such as a womans choice.
          Last edited by Dracarys; 09-04-2014, 01:19 PM.
          Beanovsky Durst - "They are not pervs. They are japanese."

          Comment


          • #35
            Wrath - *thumbs up*

            In regards to the FYC, I had already read all about this, and ironically it was because it was actually covered by some gaming media out there - mostly what had happened in the aftermath, although most reported it fairly evenly in regards to giving reason why some people did dislike Quinn. I also read this based on it:

            http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/PeaceTreaty

            ...which basically says both sides had settled their disagreement and FYC wished to move beyond what had happened. I also obviously saw the stuff with the "Vivian James" character also and how that didn't quite go that smoothly either.

            This is the champion of female game developers that Kotaku, Polygon, Neogaf, Vice, Gawker,etc is championing and defending -_-. Take away Zoes sleeping around to get ahead in the industry, and this is still just as vile. :/
            Again, I think you're still going beyond on this. I don't think I ever saw anyone championing Quinn as some sort of massive be all and end all 'female development hero', although I obviously saw enough pieces talking about the general treatment of women using both Zoe and Anita as examples so I know what you're inferring to. However...

            I think it basically came down mostly as commentary (in public, not so much all of the gaming jornos - that is a seperate issue which as I said has a long standing shadow of questionable activity) on the bile put out there.... and this just goes back to an idea of not being able to separate the two. For regardless of what Quinn has done, as I said in my very first post, there is a more than necessary level of both comment and hate going on to what should be such a non-event (as we just discussed above). And as I also said in that same very post most of it overshadowed a debate much more interesting and relevant to the industry.... which, regardless of how you feel about Anita and her videos, was probably due to be had in the gaming community at some point somehow. Do you now see where I was originally coming from in full?

            Drac - I'll take you not finding something on face value and we can just disagree about it. As I said I quoted the kickstarter page and video says nothing about equipment. If she said something on twitter it's fine, but I find that idea funny seeing as there has been a lot of discussion about her frequent non-communication about the video series... Ah well, nevermind.

            As for not being on the radar until the Kickstarter.... One of the major commentators on Anita's work is AmazingAtheist, who Wrath linked on the previous page, and his comments on her videos go back about 3 or 4 years now when she was doing the movie series she did. So I dunno. But you're right in that the majority did come up during or around the kickstarter, so okay fair enough, I can concur that's a fair point.

            Regarding lead characters there are by far more male characters leading games, but I don't think this is sexist. Even though there are more female gamers than ever you need look at the types of games they play. Fact is, most games are shooters, especially throughout last gen. This is not a popular genre for women, so having male leads to appeal to the demographic that does play shooters most isn't wrong in my eyes.
            But people should have more choice right? What you describe is a possible chicken and egg situation. Shooters aren't popular for women, but they won't also ever have a chance to be if some changes can't be made because being too focused for males. And if female gamer numbers are increasing, developers should be more aware of the demographics they may have to face. It's not that I can't see where you're coming from, but the thing to me is to just excuse it into the status quo feels like being stuck in the past. Personally I hate shooters, I think Call of Duty has a lot to answer for in regards to the quality of gaming period, so I have more personal problems with the genre alone though... so I can't be that surprised in regards to females. But why can't women enjoy shooters if they want.

            Regarding characer visual design. This really depends on the sort of woman playing, Take the original Lara Croft. The original is often highlighted as a sexist exploitative design but many women like how she dresses, is an extremely popular cosplay, sexual freedom is a real thing and the idea that to be respectable as a women you cannot ever be sexy or you're pandering to male values is so false, yet there are plenty of women who will complain of such design (because I'm sure they never dress sexy ever). If you're playing a video game why shouldn't your character be sexy? Of course there is a line between sexy and looking like a tart/slapper but those examples are very few and far between. Male design has its own problems but it doesn't get criticised as much as there isn't a split in male opinion on how they 'should' look or dress like there is with women.
            Yeah, but when it comes to a lot of background/NPC women they fit a specific type about 90% of the time, and female leads, even ones like Croft, are also few and far between. The bulk of the debate focuses entirely on this I guess. I've never been personally as bothered about main characters myself, but I can certainly see reason to discuss women in general and their place in most gaming worlds. In regards to male design, I assume you're talking about bulky meathead characters and/or dudebro stereotypes or the constant whitewash and or generic white male character, especially seen last gen. If so can get that.

            Her character wasn't deep by any means yet she had a lot of female fans, but then you look at the new Lara Croft who they tried to give a deep character and she comes across as fractured because she is meant to be this normal down to earth, scared young woman yet kills hundreds of men in a day or so. As to ditzy airhead type characters, well just look at many popular female celebrities, they seem pretty accepted in the real world and have legions of female fans. Why is it bad in games?
            I agree the latest TR game was a bit uneven in regards to character development against character actions, but thats not a female/male issue, thats just character to action. The same thing could be said for Nathan Drake quipping his way through Uncharted titles as he kills henchmen left and right. As for ditzy types, I can understand where you come from... but there is also various types of female celebs, and you can chose the type of celeb you might like or aspire to or whatever... there just isn't that level of choice in gaming to me.

            I guess overall I don't care a lot. I think points made for sexism are one sided with female issues just getting a lot more exposure. I think plenty of double standards. I think a lot of points are exaggerated or spun to suit personal agendas and I think there are sides of the argument nobody likes talking about incase they get labled sexist, even if it is a valid argument such as a womans choice.
            Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from on this. It's not that I entirely agree, but I can't say anything other than that and it's your opinion. I also kinda got the feeling earlier on that you didn't care too much about it which is why I asked if that was the case.

            Comment


            • #36
              interesting Forbes article about the situation. Hes basically breaking down everything and presenting the facts, including that 4/chan is helping the fine young capitalists Indiegogo which was apparently hacked in an attempt to step them from their goal.I forgot that 4chan of all places had helped the fine young capitalist get tens of thousands of dollars for the project. Quite cool I say, I'm used to 4chan being a more trollish place on the net really.

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...g-video-games/

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Wrathborne View Post
                interesting Forbes article about the situation. Hes basically breaking down everything and presenting the facts, including that 4/chan is helping the fine young capitalists Indiegogo which was apparently hacked in an attempt to step them from their goal.I forgot that 4chan of all places had helped the fine young capitalist get tens of thousands of dollars for the project. Quite cool I say, I'm used to 4chan being a more trollish place on the net really.

                http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...g-video-games/
                Good article. Cheers for the link.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Wow... This new video actually shows some pretty damning evidence, not just against the IGF, but against the creator of Fez Phil Phish. I believe what we have here, is possible racketeering.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X