Corruption in gaming journalism discussion and update thread. - General

[QUOTE=truckilles;46794419][IMG]http://www.likesbooks.com/coverballot/2002/WO-02g.jpg[/IMG] Conan, He-Man or Romance Novel?[/QUOTE] Romance novel. What's your point?

[QUOTE=truckilles;46794419][IMG]http://www.likesbooks.com/coverballot/2002/WO-02g.jpg[/IMG] Conan, He-Man or Romance Novel?[/QUOTE] if anything the issue with that isn't the oversexualisation of the man, it's the overtly colonialist 'naive white girl falls in love with the sexy native' thing that was corny af decades ago

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46792452]Their purpose is still to objectify and sexualise women, don't try to pretend like it's not.[/QUOTE] Might wanna read you some every Fabio picture ever, Frank Frazetta and Conan before you trip over your lofty perch.

Really, the reason men are "objectified" less are because women are much more often attracted to a man's personality. Again, that's why romance novels are geared primarily towards women. I never see people bring this up because people don't like to acknowledge that in general, women and men are psychologically different.

#gamergate christmas album [url]https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMV_ySZ_SnofC9cL8RrKkLoYE3RcH3SAY[/url]

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46794778]women are much more often attracted to a man's personality[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://a.tgcdn.net/images/products/zoom/8cdd_rfid_blocking_wallet.jpg[/IMG] HUE HUE HUE :V [sp]It's a joke. I don't really mean it.[/sp].

[QUOTE=gashol;46794941][IMG]http://a.tgcdn.net/images/products/zoom/8cdd_rfid_blocking_wallet.jpg[/IMG] HUE HUE HUE :V [sp]It's a joke. I don't really mean it.[/sp].[/QUOTE] There was this talk where scientists analysed what turns people on using the power of the internet, but I can't find it without wading through tons of (almost but not quite) porn right now. I think the conclusion they arrived at is that it's not too far from the truth, but the form of "male objectification" they found was much more apt to being represented in writing than visually. I'm not surprised there's no outrage over that considering you'd need to take at least a few minutes to see it when confronted with the source material. Books are also far more socially accepted than video games, which is another reason for the double standard. (For the record: I don't mind either form existing. I'm also not too concerned about the double standard between media since that's to be expected. What bugs me is when people complain about one of them using blanket statements and then completely ignore the other, even when confronted with it.)

Neogaf finds out about Johnathan Mcintosh [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=958996[/url]

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46794778]Really, the reason men are "objectified" less are because women are much more often attracted to a man's personality. Again, that's why romance novels are geared primarily towards women. I never see people bring this up because people don't like to acknowledge that in general, women and men are psychologically different.[/QUOTE] Male objectivication is a lot harder to read because it depends on analyzing the character's personality instead of just what they're wearing. Often, the best way to tell is by seeing how women react to the character. Hell, I'd say there are cases where women objectify male characters that originally weren't meant to be objectified, like MCU's Loki. Compare this with female objecitivation, where any dipshit highschooler can point out excessive T&A shots and skimpy outfits. Male objectification is a lot more fluid and requires some analyzing, which means to people that don't really have the chops to really look at a character deeply, there is no male objectification.

[QUOTE=Ziron;46789435]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.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, but I was more inclined to a not so amazonian (I guess?...) kind of style, and more of an actual knight, which might not have as much bikini armor. More among the lines of "this is bikini armor, as you can plainly see, but its actually giving the character as much defense as a full set of armor, by some kind of sorcery or something".

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;46795430]Well, yeah, but I was more inclined to a not so amazonian (I guess?...) kind of style, and more of an actual knight, which might not have as much bikini armor. More among the lines of "this is bikini armor, as you can plainly see, but its actually giving the character as much defense as a full set of armor, by some kind of sorcery or something".[/QUOTE] most of that seems to only be a problem in japanese games, at least as of recent that i have noticed. what western games have had bikini armor for women recently? i can't think of any examples, personally, but i haven't been playing too many games

[QUOTE=Wii60;46795287]Neogaf finds out about Johnathan Mcintosh [url]http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=958996[/url][/QUOTE] Bit slow on the uptake arnt they?

[QUOTE=27X;46794536]Might wanna read you some every Fabio picture ever, Frank Frazetta and Conan before you trip over your lofty perch.[/QUOTE] Ahahahah good lord the fact that all of you get defensive and start screeching "SJW" and "Anita Sarkeesian" related insults when I'm discussing the legitimate issue of oversexualization is exactly why a lot of people don't take gamers or GG seriously. Like the amount of people posting "b-b-but the men are too!!!" as if it nullifies anything I've said is astounding and pretty revealing of the motives of the common GGer.

This GG thread is pretty insightful. [url]https://archive.today/Wf6KC[/url]

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46795828]Ahahahah good lord the fact that all of you get defensive and start screeching "SJW" and "Anita Sarkeesian" related insults when I'm discussing the legitimate issue of oversexualization is exactly why a lot of people don't take gamers or GG seriously. Like the amount of people posting "b-b-but the men are too!!!" as if it nullifies anything I've said is astounding and pretty revealing of the motives of the common GGer.[/QUOTE] Good thing you didnt refute his argument or you might have brought up some good points. That's hardly an insult as well.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46793966][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/KRXY7sM.jpg[/IMG] the tumblr post: [URL]http://zackerey.tumblr.com/post/106146095223/let-me-make-my-stance-on-child-pornography-very[/URL][/QUOTE] So you know, that gamerghazi post is making fun of that article. In part because of the content, and in other part because it was posted by someone pro gamergate. That title is obviously meant to make fun of that tumblr post.

[QUOTE=Heldure;46795871]Good thing you didnt refute his argument or you might have brought up some good points. That's hardly an insult as well.[/QUOTE] I don't need to when I've already brought up all the points I need to in previous posts. All posts after that were pretty much just "b-b-b-but the MEN" or "blah blah blah SJW!!!11 blah blah blah SARKEESIAN!" [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Threadshitting" - Craptasket))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46795828]Ahahahah good lord the fact that all of you get defensive and start screeching "SJW" and "Anita Sarkeesian" related insults when I'm discussing the legitimate issue of oversexualization is exactly why a lot of people don't take gamers or GG seriously. Like the amount of people posting "b-b-but the men are too!!!" as if it nullifies anything I've said is astounding and pretty revealing of the motives of the common GGer.[/QUOTE] There are a lot of reasons bikini armor is as popular as it is, and most of them aren't good. The ancient Greeks, Sumerians, and countless other cultures have been sexualizing their war heroes in their art essentially since the dawn of civilization. Is it a tired trope? Yeah sure. Should we criticize bad art/games/whatever for shitty writing? Of course. There are 350 pages of posts here though, and you're characterizing countless people concerned with the issues you've touched on AND about issues of personal accountability, journalistic integrity, and consumer-friendly business practices on this forum and elsewhere on the basis of a handful of posts and ratings. The fact that you've managed to gloss over everything else says a lot to me, and I'll wager other posters here as well. Unless I'm blind, only mattk50 said anything about "SJWs" or "Anita" while responding to your posts. You're literally generalizing an entire thread over a single god damn post. Sorry to say, but your opinions aren't going to qualify as 'legitimate issues' in my eyes if you're going to be a dismissive asshole, argue in bad faith, and present weak as shit arguments or evidence for your claims. I mean shit I even agree with most of what you're saying but you're just being an asshole. [editline]26th December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=xxncxx;46795904]I don't need to when I've already brought up all the points I need to in previous posts. All posts after that were pretty much just "b-b-b-but the MEN" or "blah blah blah SJW!!!11 blah blah blah SARKEESIAN!"[/QUOTE] People like you make a mockery of legitimate issues plaguing society. You're absolutely contributing negatively to the situation and are only going to hurt the very people you're trying to help.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46795904]I don't need to when I've already brought up all the points I need to in previous posts. All posts after that were pretty much just "b-b-b-but the MEN" or "blah blah blah SJW!!!11 blah blah blah SARKEESIAN!"[/QUOTE] You do realize that being snarky doesn't really encourage people to agree with you right? I mean how would you feel if I just generalized all your arguments as "b-b-but the PATRIARCHY" or "blah blah blah internalized misogyny!!!11 blah blah blah MRA Scum!"

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46795828]Ahahahah good lord the fact that all of you get defensive and start screeching "SJW" and "Anita Sarkeesian" related insults when I'm discussing the legitimate issue of oversexualization is exactly why a lot of people don't take gamers or GG seriously. Like the amount of people posting "b-b-but the men are too!!!" as if it nullifies anything I've said is astounding and pretty revealing of the motives of the common GGer.[/QUOTE] I'm not defensive at all, that the industry needs change and I'm one of the people pushing it isn't even germane to the fact that your biblically generic and sweeping obtusism covers a legitimate depiction of [I]any[/I] aspect of the human form that's been used for 6 millennia rather deftly; and even in the changing of values and mores within the industry there won't be an abandoning of any shorthand, because it's still an obviously effective tool. Just because it makes you seethingly butthurt isn't remotely an objective critique. Post like yawmwen, get treated like yawmwen. Perhaps you should stop projecting and start constructing.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46795904]I don't need to when I've already brought up all the points I need to in previous posts. All posts after that were pretty much just "b-b-b-but the MEN" or "blah blah blah SJW!!!11 blah blah blah SARKEESIAN!"[/QUOTE] You don't want to partake any further in a discussion that's fine. But fuck off with this "I don't need to argue anymore because you're all losers :^)" garbage. This thread has already had it's share of nonsense of that vein from several other people, many of which strangely enough are banned now unless I'm mistaken.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46794518]Romance novel. What's your point?[/QUOTE] A subindustry designed almost entirely for, and consumed by, heterosexual women. Without fail, will feature a man with broad shoulders, low bodyfat and masculinized facial features. The male object of the desire in the book will also almost always be dangerous, somewhat violent in one respect or another, and very dominant. (yes, twilight is a trashy romance novel just featuring vampires instead of the noble savage or nomadic warrior trope, in case anyone hadn't figured that out yet)

[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;46796068]A subindustry designed almost entirely for, and consumed by, heterosexual women. Without fail, will feature a man with broad shoulders, low bodyfat and masculinized facial features. The male object of the desire in the book will also almost always be dangerous, somewhat violent in one respect or another, and very dominant. (yes, twilight is a trashy romance novel just featuring vampires instead of the noble savage or nomadic warrior trope, in case anyone hadn't figured that out yet)[/QUOTE] while the romance novel genre does give good example of male objectification, i believe it has little relevance on objectification in video games

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46795828]Ahahahah good lord the fact that all of you get defensive and start screeching "SJW" and "Anita Sarkeesian" related insults when I'm discussing the legitimate issue of oversexualization is exactly why a lot of people don't take gamers or GG seriously. Like the amount of people posting "b-b-but the men are too!!!" as if it nullifies anything I've said is astounding and pretty revealing of the motives of the common GGer.[/QUOTE] But, your solution to the legitimate issue of oversexualization is to... complain about it? There's nothing wrong with games doing it, obviously all games doing it is a problem but that's both far from the case and, even if they were, it's not sexism, objectification, or a rights problem or anything on that scale. It's just a facet of games that can be improved through normal means like every other part of a game, there is no need for special treatment here. And, the fact is, the claims of how much of this female only sexualization in video games is vastly overstated, men do get it too, just less, because duh there are less women for it to appeal to in the core gaming audience. And the solution to THAT problem certainly isn't screaming about how games are evil and treat all women poorly or something, that's a self fulfilling prophecy. The reason you're being equated to anita is you're using her core argument, that a "sexualized" women in a video game is sexualization and objectification of all women, and that this is somehow damaging to the world as a whole. That's wrong on both levels.

[QUOTE=Wii60;46795862]This GG thread is pretty insightful. [url]https://archive.today/Wf6KC[/url][/QUOTE] If by "insightful" you mean "uses GG as a way to push a conspiracy theory" then yeah. It claims that pretty much all of the Anti-GG media is in the pockets of the ultra rich to push Common Core, as if they're being directly paid tons of money to be biased. And it bases this entirely on speculation, without a single piece of evidence. Do you know how fucking hard it would be to hide that? Especially when GG has thousands of gamers constantly looking at them under a microscope?

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46796327]If by "insightful" you mean "uses GG as a way to push a conspiracy theory" then yeah. It claims that pretty much all of the Anti-GG media is in the pockets of the ultra rich to push Common Core, as if they're being directly paid tons of money to be biased. And it bases this entirely on speculation, without a single piece of evidence. Do you know how fucking hard it would be to hide that? Especially when GG has thousands of gamers constantly looking at them under a microscope?[/QUOTE] yeah, it is pretty far-fetched. i think that it does deserve more research into it though because it wouldn't hurt as long as it is divorced from gamergate. not that the supposed "plan" would much work anyways since the general public hates Common Core

[QUOTE=Helix Snake;46796327]If by "insightful" you mean "uses GG as a way to push a conspiracy theory" then yeah. It claims that pretty much all of the Anti-GG media is in the pockets of the ultra rich to push Common Core, as if they're being directly paid tons of money to be biased. And it bases this entirely on speculation, without a single piece of evidence. Do you know how fucking hard it would be to hide that? Especially when GG has thousands of gamers constantly looking at them under a microscope?[/QUOTE] people need to remember digra digging was also considered conspiracy theroy bullshit till it pulled out some credible stuff involving fem freq and other connections. This is why i dont think this theroy isn't worthy of being called bs yet. if you don't want to involve yourself i can see why but gamergate shouldn't reject the idea entirely. speaking of digging into organizations, GG started looking at Adbusters. [URL]https://8chan.co/gamergate/res/135341.html[/URL] [QUOTE]In 2010, Zoe Quinn took a course called ‘The Difference Engine’ and learned how to make games. That course was run by a Jim Munroe, who used to work for Adbusters. Adbusters started OWS, which some people believe was designed to fail but have a cultural impact. The OWS movement was made "viral" on twitter and globally in a very suspicious manner. A workshop for indie female gamers wouldn't be an issue if they weren't set up by these people or if the people who did the workshop weren't involved in future social movements. [url]http://theculturalgutter.com/videogames/blaspheming_in_the_church_of_zelda.html[/url] This article, from 2004, is about how gamers don't like casuals and how hardcore gaming is stupid. Jim Munroe even mentions Edge magazine. He's part of the long term efforts to redefine gaming to make it acceptable to normies. [QUOTE]The cover of the most recent issue of Edge reads, “Mainstream: why the days of hardcore games are numbered.” The excellent UK gaming mag analyzes and explores the implications of a surprising statistic released by Sony’s internal research: “of the games played by a broad range of people, only 20 per cent are ever completed.”[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The hardcore gamer, therefore, only accounts for a fifth of the people who enjoy this form of entertainment. As vocal as they are — and as invested as they are — they’re an old-guard minority with a conservative streak. I think it would be a mistake to let them set the standard of how a game should be judged.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE] [editline]26th December 2014[/editline] Johnathan Mcintosh also worked for Adbusters.

Its worth pointing out then that the Occupy movement actually supports the pro-gamer side of GamerGate.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46796775]Its worth pointing out then that the Occupy movement actually supports the pro-gamer side of GamerGate.[/QUOTE] yea the remnants of it do after the SJW's crashed it into the ground with progressive stack and all that shit then left it. also Patreon updated their guidelines again: [url]http://www.patreon.com/guidelines[/url] [QUOTE]Patreon is for makers, creators, and people who bring ideas to fruition. Don’t put up fake pages or collect money for things you’re not actually doing. You also can’t use Patreon as a prank or to fund non-activity. For example, no creator is allowed to collect funds for not doing something, or to fund the distribution of creations that are not yours.[/QUOTE] this is gonna be very fun to watch

[QUOTE=Wii60;46796584]people need to remember digra digging was also considered conspiracy theroy bullshit till it pulled out some credible stuff involving fem freq and other connections. This is why i dont think this theroy isn't worthy of being called bs yet. if you don't want to involve yourself i can see why but gamergate shouldn't reject the idea entirely.[/QUOTE] It basically was conspiracy theory bullshit until there was evidence. If speculation isn't kept reasonably in check it's going to cause problems.