Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46686471]There's a lot of inconsistencies with their arguments. They criticize all forms of female characters. Female characters who utilize sexuality are attacked for that, whether or not the character owns their sexuality or is being used by it, regardless of if a woman created the character, it's attacked for that. If a character has no sexuality in a female way, ala Vasquez from aliens, they're attacked for being men in womens bodys, so either polarity of sexuality is wrong, despite both existing and people choosing to exist those ways in the real world. If a character is strong, they're criticized for being too strong and thus not realistic. If they're weak, they're called out on that for being objects in the story unable to act on anything by being weak. Think about the criticisms of Lara croft. No representation has been considered correct yet. I try to think of what they want, but I can't. I've not watched enough of FemFrequencies critiques on films to make much of a statement about that, but at least no representation in video games is possible to satisfy people who agree with that view point.[/QUOTE] This is exactly why I'm sick and tired of the incessant nagging from the likes of Sarkeesian and Wu. If we're so damn terrible at making a PROPER female protagonist, get off your fucking asses and make one of your own. Or do like take two's CEO said, DON'T BUY THE FUCKING GAME. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean somebody else won't.

[QUOTE=lazyguy;46687084]The sauce? Why would a condiment be part of Polygon's adverting campaign?[/QUOTE] Hewlett-Packard. Not Horse Power sauce.

Anti-gg tried to start a hashtag again on twitter #gamergatenightmares it ended horribly because pro-gg used it to post proof of twitter harrassment on their side and general shitposting. [url]https://twitter.com/search?q=%23gamergatenightmares&src=typd[/url]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6nFbERr.png[/IMG] [url]https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/542581564731703296[/url] Soooo she just inadvertently confirms that the reason she disables comments is because of criticism?

So that's the second hashtag pro-GG outright hijacked? Third, maybe? Amazing.

[QUOTE=EmperorVagak;46687559]So that's the second hashtag pro-GG outright hijacked? Third, maybe? Amazing.[/QUOTE] I think that's the 15th hashtag killed.

[QUOTE=Pteradactyl;46687528][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6nFbERr.png[/IMG] [url]https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/542581564731703296[/url] Soooo she just inadvertently confirms that the reason she disables comments is because of criticism?[/QUOTE] Also nice that she didn't bother censoring the email.

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;46687615]Also nice that she didn't bother censoring the email.[/QUOTE] well, it is from a disposable email service

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;46687615]Also nice that she didn't bother censoring the email.[/QUOTE] If you actually type in trbvm.com it leads you to 10minutemail.com, which is one of those places where you just get a temporary email.

[URL="https://archive.today/xbD6r"]Al-Jazeera is doing a live-debate on GamerGate.[/URL] This is their title image: [t]https://archive.is/xbD6r/ac0d18d1d249587b7e6be2e2327e5755a422915b.jpg[/t] The guests: [t]http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/shows/AmericaTonight/06/09/brittlebones23.jpg[/t] Fredrick Brennan Founder of 8chan [t]http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/shows/AmericaTonight/12/GamerGate_Deanna.jpg[/t] Deanna Zandt Social media harassment expert [t]http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/shows/AmericaTonight/12/Chu.jpg[/t] Arthur Chu Jeopardy! champion & culture blogger [t]http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/shows/AmericaTonight/12/Brooke.jpg[/t] Brooke GamerGate supporter Well then. At least it's probably going to be entertaining.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;46687631]well, it is from a disposable email service[/QUOTE] Well don't I look foolish :v: Silly me.

hopefully brooke is a master of delivering analpain and devistation

[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;46687659]Well don't I look foolish :v: Silly me.[/QUOTE] That's the difference between regular people and SJW's. Regular people listen to others and admit if they've made a mistake.

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46687641]Well then. At least it's probably going to be entertaining.[/QUOTE] Great, let them bring in two clear representatives of the AGG side, then one of the GG side reps is a random person. Are they trying to make this look as bad as possible? Rhetorical question, the answer is yes.

Jonathan McIntosh's opinion on art. "Your art holds no value if I disagree with it" [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cnVTOUX.png[/IMG] [URL]https://archive.today/zv6Ml[/URL] IE, if McIntosh was on fire would you piss it out? [QUOTE=JesterUK;46687719]I think he's totally right with that last one[/QUOTE] He is saying that if art is "offensive", lets be frank that means anything he disagrees with, it should not fall under artistic protection.

I think he's totally right with that last one [editline]11th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Thlis;46687708]He is saying that if art is "offensive", lets be frank that means anything he disagrees with, it should not fall under artistic protection.[/QUOTE] In his other tweets, yes. But all that third one says is something being "art" doesn't automatically give it any more meaning or value. And he's right.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46687680]hopefully brooke is a master of delivering analpain and devistation[/QUOTE] If Satan is right that's entirely possible since they won't be able to cut it so it suits their intentions, and she does seem calm enough in the interview.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;46686947]i saw a post on tublr saying quiet was a sexualized icon when BB himself can wear the same outfit quiet wears (bar fishnets and bottom bikini). Infact it doesnt take a moron to see the massive amount of homoeroticism inside the MGS/MGR series. Just really sick of people barging into series because they look at the cover and declare it something its not [B][I](especially since the boss herself was one of the most powerful characters in the fucking game and no one looked down on her for being a woman)[/I][/B].[/QUOTE] I think Quiet is sexualized icon because Kojima went out of his way to make her sexual. That's what the dude said. I generally agree with points about Metal Gear Solid though, particularly the Boss. Even EVA, a character that is arguably just as sexualized as Quiet, plays a massive role in the series mythology. Quiet can be an equally powerful character regardless of how much skin she bares.

[QUOTE=JesterUK;46687719] In his other tweets, yes. But all that third one says is something being "art" doesn't automatically give it any more meaning or value. And he's right.[/QUOTE] That's just ignoring the context of his message. He wants to censor by being able to say what is and isn't art by of all things "offensiveness". I mean at what point are we going to consider banning Gieger acceptable because his art is offensive? Should we demolish the statue because it offends? [img]http://i.imgur.com/ctXakc9.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=JesterUK;46687719] In his other tweets, yes. But all that third one says is something being "art" doesn't automatically give it any more meaning or value. And he's right.[/QUOTE] Art is subjective and thus people will find value in almost anything. I don't think "valueless art" even exists. Put in context of the other tweets, I'm leaning towards what Thlis said; the implications seem to be that art that can suddenly become un-art as soon as it breaches a certain Racist/Sexist Level that McIntosh institutes.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46687772]I think Quiet is sexualized icon because Kojima went out of his way to make her sexual. That's what the dude said. I generally agree with points about Metal Gear Solid though, particularly the Boss. Even EVA, a character that is arguably just as sexualized as Quiet, plays a massive role in the series mythology. Quiet can be an equally powerful character regardless of how much skin she bares.[/QUOTE] She also has some fucking weird superhuman speed and octocamo. I really wish Kojima explained her octocamo eye shadow powers.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46669236]They won't do anything this has happened many times before 4chan /co/ is angry as shit over this and 8chan /gamergate/ is too.[/QUOTE] [t]http://i.imgur.com/uOBI03C.png[/t] We'll see. [editline]10th December 2014[/editline] I don't know if this was posted, but McIntosh is relevant, right? [url]https://archive.today/CtMGc[/url]

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46687772]I think Quiet is sexualized icon because Kojima went out of his way to make her sexual. That's what the dude said. I generally agree with points about Metal Gear Solid though, particularly the Boss. Even EVA, a character that is arguably just as sexualized as Quiet, plays a massive role in the series mythology. Quiet can be an equally powerful character regardless of how much skin she bares.[/QUOTE] kojima said in an interview that he wasnt going for sexy exactly but erotic: [QUOTE]Speaking through a translator, he said: "Maybe the phrase 'erotic' wasn't really [the correct word for] what I was trying to say. What I'm really trying to do is create unique characters. One of those is, of course, Quiet. She's a really unique character, I wanted to add that sexiness to her. It wasn't really supposed to be erotic, but sexy." He also said, "You're going to notice [when you play,] but there's limited dialogue with the [Metal Gear Solid 5], and for that reason we really want to show the characteristic from each character. Sexy could be for guys, weapons, vehicles, it's really that characteristic." Shinkawa also weighed in at the Q&A, saying, "From my perspective, it's not just the characters, but often I look at a weapon or a vehicle and think 'That's really sexy.' It's not just the characters, but the mechs and weapons [as well]." [/QUOTE] also there's a reason why quiet dresses like that due to her powers, even the other characters in the game question about it: [QUOTE]Kojima stated, "I know there's people concerning about 'Quiet' but don't worry. I created her character as an antithesis to the women characters appeared in the past fighting game who are excessively exposed. 'Quiet' who doesn't have a word will be teased in the story as well. But once you recognize the secret reason for her exposure, you will feel ashamed of your words & deeds.[/QUOTE]

David Jaffe Talks about gamergate, he thinks the movement doesn't really "exist" because they don't have a main leader managing what to do but he agrees with alot of what gamergate supports. it's a pretty solid neutral viewpoint though besides one or two things. [URL]http://nichegamer.net/2014/12/david-jaffe-interview-ethics-censorship-and-gamergate/[/URL]

TFYC responds to the charity rejection by becoming a charity. [url]http://thefineyoungcapitalists.tumblr.com/post/104904532575/yes-we-are-becoming-a-charity-now[/url]

[QUOTE=Wii60;46688826]David Jaffe Talks about gamergate, he thinks the movement doesn't really "exist" because they don't have a main leader managing what to do but he agrees with alot of what gamergate supports. it's a pretty solid neutral viewpoint though besides one or two things. [URL]http://nichegamer.net/2014/12/david-jaffe-interview-ethics-censorship-and-gamergate/[/URL][/QUOTE] I wish I had a title of 21st century activism structure expert to bet interviewed as an expert, I've known my fair share of revolts and protests where leaderless movements are becoming a must because of the internet and people's galvanization on opposing views and acting on them to harm others.

[QUOTE=Thlis;46687784]That's just ignoring the context of his message. He wants to censor by being able to say what is and isn't art by of all things "offensiveness". I mean at what point are we going to consider banning Gieger acceptable because his art is offensive? Should we demolish the statue because it offends? [img]http://i.imgur.com/ctXakc9.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Ban all Greek statues because they feature impossibly perfect, naked female bodies. [editline]11th December 2014[/editline] Not to mention, where's all the diversity? I don't see any black models on those Greek statues. You know, I think that ethnically homogeneous ancient Greece was [I]racist[/I]!

[QUOTE=Devodiere;46686565]It's the biggest mistake anyone has made, the absolute association with sexualisation and objectification. The two are completely different issues and most sexualisation isn't an issue at all, but getting that message of nuance and complexity out through their networks is impossible, so you end up with garbage. The main character from Gone Home. A few things to be fair, not all feminists agree and when complaints are louder than praise it can seem like endless negativity. [url=https://twitter.com/spacekatgal/status/525848174498304001]Brianna Wu likes Bayonetta[/url] of all things and Sarkeesian seems content with new Lara and Faith from Mirror's Edge. The real problems start coming up when they don't have any disagreement and discussion over these things, they just hold their own definitions and although they are completely different from one another they act as if it's the same. It obscures any message, causes massive confusion over what they actually mean, causes nearly every argument to seem vague and empty, but it allows them to feed a narrative that everyone else is uninformed, this is especially true of Sarkeesian.[/QUOTE] I feel as if there's no underlying logic to what they deem as characters they like, they just like things whos authors pander to them regardless to the result(see mirrors edge 2). When they see something as "on their side" it doesn't matter. For example, in one of anita's videos she had an example game where a woman breaks out of a castle on her own after criticizing a similar game, the difference was insubstantial. Additionally, the game she described actually already exists under the name Clock Tower. So my only conclusion can be that there's little to no internal logic here, just feels.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;46689205]I feel as if there's no underlying logic to what they deem as characters they like, they just like things whos authors pander to them regardless to the result(see mirrors edge 2). When they see something as "on their side" it doesn't matter. For example, in one of anita's videos she had an example game where a woman breaks out of a castle on her own after criticizing a similar game, the difference was insubstantial. Additionally, the game she described actually already exists under the name Clock Tower. So my only conclusion can be that there's little to no internal logic here, just feels.[/QUOTE] People like Anita/Jonathan's criteria for something not being sexist reminds me a lot of a dictatorship; there are laws and rules written down, but in practice what actually happens is that everything is decided by whether the dictator likes something or not. The only thing you can do to make a "non-problematic" female character in their eyes is to hope that they don't get a bug up their ass about something in the character, criteria be damned. The whole thing is a scam for Juanathan to control video game development instead of actually helping women, so fuck him and his wannabe dictator ass.

[QUOTE=Pteradactyl;46687528][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/6nFbERr.png[/IMG] [url]https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/542581564731703296[/url] Soooo she just inadvertently confirms that the reason she disables comments is because of criticism?[/QUOTE] Oh come on she could at least have picked an e-mail calling her a dumb cunt that deserves to die instead of a light insult. Because she's got to get those all the time, r-right?