Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;46788361]I just find the rhetoric that he uses to make his point really silly.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The women in our games go through the same type of design process as the men. We ask ourselves is this an interesting character, and would players want to play AS this character. And we've never gone "hmm, is this male character attractive enough?" So we won't be doing that with the female characters either. [/QUOTE] idk that kinda seems the way it should be?

Being that I have already posted some AFB stuff in the past... Best wishes from the Anti-Fruitcake Brigade! [quote][B]MERRY CHRISTMAS! SMASH THE PASTRIARCHY![/B] [t]https://media.8chan.co/afb/src/1411693066095.png[/t] HO HO HO! Don't let the fruicakes ruin the season spirity, and be extra careful during christmas, for this is the time of the year with the most recorded testimonies of fruitcake related incidents. If you see one, and you're not an AFB agent, please contact AFB HQ and do NOT try to neutralize the threat yourself. Best wishes, hope you enjoy the day; - [ AFB ][/quote] Remember, everyone - The Pastriarchy is trying to force-feed everyone their fruitcakes, and make everyone believe that fruitcakes are the only way to go in the world. Make sure to never stop the good fight! Support Gamergate, so that someday we can have all the pies, breads, and other delicious items during the holiday season instead of the dreadful fruitcake.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46788476]idk that kinda seems the way it should be?[/QUOTE] Yeah I agree with this.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46787667] [editline]24th December 2014[/editline] [URL]http://tweetsave.com/superspacedad/status/547138064544301056[/URL][/QUOTE] The dude that tweeted that is nuts. He was extremely anti-GG in the SA's GG thread and almost everyone made fun of him for being such a histrionic baby. Even after he became that thread's punching bag for a while, he is still hardcore anti-GG. Unsurprisingly, he is a white male in his 30s with a shitty job, as "animation cleanup" in C-list adult cartoons.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;46788311]Bikini armors are stupid because they're shit protection for the sake of style. Not because they ~oppress~ women[/QUOTE] Worst part about it is that its not even that stylish. At least imo, but who the hell finds a bikini armor more stylish than a nicely stylized full piece of armor?

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46789412]Worst part about it is that its not even that stylish. At least imo, but who the hell finds a bikini armor more stylish than a nicely stylized full piece of armor?[/QUOTE] It depends on the style. If you're doing somthing Frank Frazetta or Boris Vallejo-inspired, full body armor on a woman is gong to look very out of place considering a part of those styles are "everyone is running around with very little on them". In cases like that, bikini armor works a lot better.

Context is king. It is the first rule of functional aesthetics and visual design.

Over sexualized games tend to try and have that compensate for other shortcomings,Hell MGQ despite being notorious for being that erogi has a decent story and a good soundtrack.

[URL]http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2qcc6i/lets_help_out_dan_olson_keep_reading/[/URL] [QUOTE]Let's help out Dan Olson. (Keep reading...) Dan Olson got himself into a pickle by downloading some CP. That's a real shame. In the spirit of the season, I say we point this guy to someone who can help him out. IIRC LW3 organized some kind of legal defense fund for this kind of a situation, right?. Now, if memory serves, that money was gathered through LW1's Patreon. We should probably let Dan know that LW1 has a bunch of money in an account waiting for him to collect on. That's what the money was for, right? She still has the money, right? Merry Christmas.[/QUOTE]

Oh gosh, that's definitely going to cause some infighting if it goes a certain way.

I'm hoping that at some point anti-GG people are going to start supporting this guy and saying it was some kind of framing by Gamergate or something. [editline]25th December 2014[/editline] By now, if you're anti-GG, you can trust that anybody else anti-GG will always support your innocence no matter what... Y'know, unless you happen to do something utterly [I]unforgivably heinous[/I], like [I][B]interacting with Gamergaters[/B][/I].

[QUOTE=Xonax;46786937][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1443322[/url] I would post it here but I don't know if it's been posted before.[/QUOTE] Here's to hoping that Gawker turns into Canwest 2.0. Except this time, it's deserved. Context for non-Canadians: Canwest was a media empire that went insolvent because of its fetish for acquiring companies, even if those companies are financial black holes themselves ([I]cough[/I] National Post [I]cough[/I]).

[URL]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48156684/xmas-vivtest.swf[/URL]

The people who are depicted in that game are going to look at it and say something stupid over it, claiming harassment by showing a game of Vivian beating them up. But that'll be okay and hilarious to see.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46791051][URL]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48156684/xmas-vivtest.swf[/URL][/QUOTE] It's great that this has Bernd mode, that's more considerate than a lot of AA titles. [editline]edit[/editline] Is it just me or was this just updated? It seems a few/almost all bugs disappeared.

I wonder how much bullcrap and statistics it'll take for the Wikipedia administration to cave in? Probably 10 miles worth, I guess.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46791051][URL]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/48156684/xmas-vivtest.swf[/URL][/QUOTE] I wish my words were more effective against SJ Snowman, but I guess it's comparable to trying to talk to a regular SJ Snowflake.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;46788311]Bikini armors are stupid because they're shit protection for the sake of style. Not because they ~oppress~ women[/QUOTE] Their purpose is still to objectify and sexualise women, don't try to pretend like it's not.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46792452]Their purpose is still to objectify and sexualise women, don't try to pretend like it's not.[/QUOTE] My friend was upset his JRPG didn't have swim trunks for the male character but you could get a swimsuit for the female character.

[QUOTE=residntevl;46792475]My friend was upset his JRPG didn't have swim trunks for the male character but you could get a swimsuit for the female character.[/QUOTE] Are you just adding on to what I'm saying or is this a counter point? I'm lost.

[QUOTE=residntevl;46792433]I wish my words were more effective against SJ Snowman, but I guess it's comparable to trying to talk to a regular SJ Snowflake.[/QUOTE] You have to[sp]aim upwards[/sp].

[QUOTE=Tamschi;46792514]You have to[sp]aim upwards[/sp].[/QUOTE] I'm retarded. I'm amazed I could beat the geese. [QUOTE=xxncxx;46792478]Are you just adding on to what I'm saying or is this a counter point? I'm lost.[/QUOTE] A counter would be saying my friend could get a banana hammock for this male character, where's objectification now, punk?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46792452]Their purpose is still to objectify and sexualise women, don't try to pretend like it's not.[/QUOTE] I understand what sexualization means even though that's not necessarily a bad thing per se, but what is "objectification" supposed to mean in this context ? Aren't all characters in video games objects to some extent ? Enemy NPCs are usually nothing more than moving targets, friendly ones are simple quest dispensers or there to be protected. What is the point of pointing that out and pretend it's an issue ? Sounds to me like typical Sarkeesian rhetoric, dramatising some trivial aspect of games and acting as if it's relevant to her point.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46792692]I understand what sexualisation means even though that's not necessarily a bad thing per se[/QUOTE] No it's not, and that's not what I'm implying. But in this context (where a man has modest armor but a woman doesn't), it is a bad thing. [QUOTE=_Axel;46792692]but what is "objectification" supposed to mean in this context ? Aren't all characters in video games objects to some extent ?[/quote] Literally yes, but objectification in this sense is basically referring to another character (in this case a woman) as an object, something to own or possess. You don't own or possess people. [QUOTE=_Axel;46792692] Enemy NPCs are usually nothing more than moving targets, friendly ones are simple quest dispensers or there to be protected. What is the point of pointing that out and pretend it's an issue ? Sounds to me like typical Sarkeesian rhetoric, dramatising some trivial aspect of games and acting as if it's relevant to her point.[/QUOTE] You're getting too literal with this. We're talking about the message it sends, not the medium its being sent on. The point I'm trying to make is that sexualisation is all good if it works in context. Say you have a fantasy world and everyone wears lascivious and lewd armor, and everything is hyper sexualized. That's totally cool and whatnot. But having a fantasy world where all the men wear normal looking armor and then have all the women wear skimpy armor, is bad. Saying that the armor is bad because its not well designed and won't protect the wearer doesn't excuse it from the fact that its meant to sexualize and objectify whoever is wearing it.

Hi all, Merry Christmas! Sorry I've been away. I saw this post though and wanted to jump in, [QUOTE=SelfishDragon;46788311]Bikini armors are stupid because they're shit protection for the sake of style. Not because they ~oppress~ women[/QUOTE] The intent of a lot of bikini armor artwork is to create a half-naked woman character that players can oggle. There's never any other intent to give a female character bikini armor - it's [i]always[/i] about sexualizing the character. It doesn't make sense, true. But it's also gross because it asks the player to view women characters as a sex object first before looking at them as nuanced individuals center to the gameplay/plot. Imagine if someone cast "Macbeth" with Lady Macbeth wearing only a thong and a bra for... no reason at all. It makes no sense in relation to the plot nor setting, but it's there, and she's half-naked. The intent is to ask viewers to look at her as a sex object first, a character second. For the narrative, this affects the way that viewers engage with a character, which is one of the reasons writers should be avoiding objectification - it weakens their character's entire characterization. That's not to say that you cannot have characters showing cleavage or in swimsuits. It just means that this is a larger pattern of characterization that exists in gaming, in which women are designed for the player character based on physical attractiveness first. That actually [i]is[/i] a problem that's constant throughout gaming, albeit very few people feel like explaining it in detail. Because Polygon and Kotaku pay based on page views, not explaining feminist theory.

[QUOTE=residntevl;46792567]I'm retarded. I'm amazed I could beat the geese.[/QUOTE] Those are much easier if you switch weapons. At least in the version that doesn't glitch.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46792760]No it's not, and that's not what I'm implying. But in this context (where a man has modest armor but a woman doesn't), it is a bad thing. Literally yes, but objectification in this sense is basically referring to another character (in this case a woman) as an object, something to own or possess. You don't own or possess people. You're getting too literal with this. We're talking about the message it sends, not the medium its being sent on. The point I'm trying to make is that sexualisation is all good if it works in context. Say you have a fantasy world and everyone wears lascivious and lewd armor, and everything is hyper sexualized. That's totally cool and whatnot. But having a fantasy world where all the men wear normal looking armor and then have all the women wear skimpy armor, is bad. Saying that the armor is bad because its not well designed and won't protect the wearer doesn't excuse it from the fact that its meant to sexualize and objectify whoever is wearing it.[/QUOTE] Why is it a bad thing exactly ? Because it's inconsistent or because it's somehow oppressive ? It makes a lot of difference; if it's the former case it simply means it's a mediocre game whereas in the latter case it actually has a bad influence on society. And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of games where you're able or even encouraged to "own" people, as slaves or otherwise. I don't see how that's any different here. It's still a fictional character and not an infringement of anyone's right. See, my problem with this is that you act as if the characters depicted here are actual persons. Yet everyone is fine with slaughtering virtual people in games so that can't possibly be the problem here. To me such design choices are simply a display of bad taste, which I'd be glad to see corrected, rather than something that actually affects people, just like Hatred. We can take that to MD if you want but I'm not sure if there's much more to say about it.

I personally think bikini armour is fine in games where the story doesn't really matter or is in no way meant to be taken seriously. People like seeing attractive people in attractive attire,I don't really see why that's a crime Have there been any games with bikini armour in Triple A titles nowadays? [editline]26th December 2014[/editline] This is more of a problem of bad design decisions rather than objectification of women to me really. I don't want to see bikini armour in my grimdark fantasy games and I don't want to see out of place women in makeup in my post-apocalyptic games *cough*Metro Last Light*cough* because it takes me out of the experience.

[QUOTE=_Axel;46792911]Why is it a bad thing exactly ? Because it's inconsistent or because it's somehow oppressive ? It makes a lot of difference; if it's the former case it simply means it's a mediocre game whereas in the latter case it actually has a bad influence on society. And I'm pretty sure there are plenty of games where you're able or even encouraged to "own" people, as slaves or otherwise. I don't see how that's any different here. It's still a fictional character and not an infringement of anyone's right. See, my problem with this is that you act as if the characters depicted here are actual persons. Yet everyone is fine with slaughtering virtual people in games so that can't possibly be the problem here. To me such design choices are simply a display of bad taste, which I'd be glad to see corrected, rather than something that actually affects people, just like Hatred. We can take that to MD if you want but I'm not sure if there's much more to say about it.[/QUOTE] You're still missing the point. As Reimu explained, having out of place outfits that are purposefully for sexualization, you view the wearer as a sex object first and a nuanced character second. It's bad writing, it's bad for diverse representation, and it's not a good message to send to anyone. [QUOTE=Matrix374;46792930]I personally think bikini armour is fine in games where the story doesn't really matter or is in no way meant to be taken seriously. People like seeing attractive people in attractive attire,I don't really see why that's a crime [/QUOTE] It's not a crime, but when you have only women subject to such sexualisation, its a problem.

[QUOTE=Matrix374;46792930]I personally think bikini armour is fine in games where the story doesn't really matter or is in no way meant to be taken seriously. People like seeing attractive people in attractive attire,I don't really see why that's a crime [/QUOTE] i would say that fighting games would be an example