Anita Sarkeesian bullshitting about how it feels to be a gamergate target - General

[QUOTE=MadPro119;46964904] [B]Women were banned from serving in combat until 2013 in the United States[/B]. [/QUOTE] Yeah but Black Ops is fiction, so why is that a legitimate justification?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970282]Yeah but Black Ops is fiction, so why is that a legitimate justification?[/QUOTE] Just because it's fiction doesn't mean it has to be entirely unrealistic. Also. Blackops took place in 1960's. Soo... yeah..

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46970296]Just because it's fiction doesn't mean it has to be entirely unrealistic. Also. Blackops took place in 1960's. So yeah.[/QUOTE] Okay? It's a fictional game, why does it have to be restricted to actual historical events? It's loosely related to the Vietnam war, what's so bad about adding women to the game? Are people gonna cry "muh realism"?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970307]It also doesn't mean it has to be entirely realistic either.[/QUOTE] When a game is trying to be somewhat historically accurate to 1960 it doesn't include women in the US armed forces.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46970318]When a game is trying to be somewhat historically accurate to 1960 it doesn't include women in the US armed forces.[/QUOTE] Black Ops, historically accurate? You're kidding right? Even at "somewhat historically accurate", whats to say the women would just throw it to the "super unrealistic" territory. Why is there an excuse every time women or other minorities have to be excluded from something?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970307]Okay? It's a fictional game, why does it have to be restricted to actual historical events? It's loosely related to the Vietnam war, what's so bad about adding women to the game? Are people gonna cry "muh realism"?[/QUOTE] It's a very simple design choice. What should we have females fighting along side men in WW2? It just didn't happen and changing that would be like "uhh... what?" It's a HUGE concept and they only explanation would be an "alternative reality." Which for many games isn't really a choice. It's trying to mimic 1900's culture not 2015's.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46970328]It's a very simple design choice. What should we have females fighting along side men in WW2? It just didn't happen and changing that would be like "uhh... what?" It's trying to mimic 1900's culture not 2015's.[/QUOTE] Sorry but when you have a game built around showing off advanced technology unheard of from that time period, you lose all rights to say its trying to mimic that culture. [editline]19th January 2015[/editline] Simply put, there's no reason there couldn't have been women, and you don't really have a stable excuse as to why.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970325]Black Ops, historically accurate? You're kidding right? Even at "somewhat historically accurate", whats to say the women would just throw it to the "super unrealistic" territory. Why is there an excuse every time women or other minorities have to be excluded from something?[/QUOTE] I don't think you get it. at all.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970325]Black Ops, historically accurate? You're kidding right? Even at "somewhat historically accurate", whats to say the women would just throw it to the "super unrealistic" territory. Why is there an excuse every time women or other minorities have to be excluded from something?[/QUOTE] That's not an excuse. That's a legitimate thing. Your warping all of history to make it happen. COD makes events that COULD have happened as unrealistic as they are.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46970351]That's not an excuse. That's a legitimate thing. Your warping all of history to make it happen. COD makes events that COULD have happened as unrealistic as they are.[/QUOTE] But letting women fight in wars is TOO unrealistic right? Why is that? Are women not strong enough to fight for their country? Is that why you think its too unrealistic?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970341]Sorry but when you have a game built around showing off advanced technology unheard of from that time period, you lose all rights to say its trying to mimic that culture. [editline]19th January 2015[/editline] Simply put, there's no reason there couldn't have been women, and you don't really have a stable excuse as to why.[/QUOTE] Yeah I do, your literally warping all of history for the sake of diversity. Why change basic premises If you want females then do a modern game, they aren't going to change human history in it's whole just to meet the quota of being diversified. Somebody else can probably explain this better. [QUOTE=xxncxx;46970359]But letting women fight in wars is TOO unrealistic right? Why is that? Are women not strong enough to fight for their country? Is that why you think its too unrealistic?[/QUOTE] I never even implied that once. Please don't extend the goalposts.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46970364]Yeah I do, your literally warping all of history for the sake of diversity. Why change basic premises If you want females then do a modern game, they aren't going to change human history in it's whole just to meet the quota of being diversified. Somebody else can probably explain this better.[/QUOTE] Except I'm not? I'm going by YOUR logic. If it COULD have happened, then it makes sense. What's to say it couldn't? I'm thinking of multiple ways the plot could have been slightly modified to allow for women without changing the flow of the game or the story. Why is it so hard for you to?

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970373]Except I'm not? I'm going by YOUR logic. If it COULD have happened, then it makes sense. What's to say it couldn't? I'm thinking of multiple ways the plot could have been slightly modified to allow for women without changing the flow of the game or the story. Why is it so hard for you to?[/QUOTE] For god's sake man, it's a videogame that's mimicking 1900's culture, it can decide whether to add females or not. It's not required to add females to every game, just like its not required to add men, homosexual people or any other type of person or minority to any creative work. They aren't being sexist or whatever for not doing it, it's just a design choice while mimicking a culture where yes, women were considered less AT THE TIME. If you make a modern game, yeah, you should add females because it's a real thing. But it's your choice whether or not you want to for anything earlier then that.

[QUOTE=Te Great Skeeve;46970399]For god's sake man, it's a videogame that's mimicking 1900's culture, it can decide whether to add females or not. It's not required to add females to every game, just like its not required to add men, homosexual people or any other type of person or minority to any creative work. They aren't being sexist or whatever for not doing it, it's just a design choice while mimicking a culture where yes, women were considered less.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying its required, I'm asking why its too unrealistic for them to do it when the game is not even based on being realistic in the slightest.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970341]Sorry but when you have a game built around showing off advanced technology unheard of from that time period, you lose all rights to say its trying to mimic that culture. [editline]19th January 2015[/editline] Simply put, there's no reason there couldn't have been women, and you don't really have a stable excuse as to why.[/QUOTE] Simply put, prototype versions of surface to air missiles and helicopter gunships break my suspension of disbelief a lot less than seeing a woman hamfisted into a story about 1960's special forces operators. You fight Vietcong in the game so maybe the chance to arbitrarily replace a few models with women but I'm not sure that would add much to the experience.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970404]I'm not saying its required, I'm asking why its too unrealistic for them to do it when the game is not even based on being realistic in the slightest.[/QUOTE] It is slightly based on some historic accuracy, sure it adds bullshit to it but the basic premises is still there. Yeah there's lots of ways that they could have added women, do they HAVE too, no. It's a design choice. You were originally arguing about why it's a justification to why they didn't add them - they didn't add them because it wasn't common AT ALL in 1960's, which is enough justification to not adding them. Which is why a lot of WW2 games, a lot of games based on 1900's did not have females in the armed forces, because, at the time, they weren't. Plain and simple. [QUOTE=Raidyr;46970431]Simply put, prototype versions of surface to air missiles and helicopter gunships break my suspension of disbelief a lot less than seeing a woman hamfisted into a story about 1960's special forces operators. You fight Vietcong in the game so maybe the chance to arbitrarily replace a few models with women but I'm not sure that would add much to the experience.[/QUOTE] There are ways to add women to the main story; but it's not required by the dev's to do so because of the time it took place in.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;46964845]I just don't see how lacking female protagonists is sexist. [/QUOTE] because one gender isn't getting NEARLY as many characters as the other, aka, there is a bias towards one gender being in lead roles, aka, sexism. look, this wouldn't be a problem if male characters were only playable in 50% of games. it wouldn't be a problem if they were the majority at 60% or at 65%, but we all know it's not like that there's no sexism in choosing to make your lead character a male, but it's present when you ALWAYS choose to do that

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970404]I'm not saying its required, I'm asking why its too unrealistic for them to do it when the game is not even based on being realistic in the slightest.[/QUOTE] They pay more attention to being believably realistic than you are giving them credit for. Events take place at the right time and technology is slightly ahead of the curve because you play as the tip of the US military spear in the games story. While the gameplay and setpieces might be Hollywood inspired, the world itself tries to stay authentic, and having women filling any sort of role beyond administration would shatter that feeling.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970307]Okay? It's a fictional game, why does it have to be restricted to actual historical events? It's loosely related to the Vietnam war, what's so bad about adding women to the game? Are people gonna cry "muh realism"?[/QUOTE] I get your point, but shouldn't we then remove all traces of history when it's offensive unless the specific point of it is to be a historical game? In a game that uses a modified reality for it's timeline, you're suggesting that there is no reason to keep it grounded in reality to give it a plausible feel. This to me is just not okay.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;46970442]because one gender isn't getting NEARLY as many characters as the other, aka, there is a bias towards one gender being in lead roles, aka, sexism. look, this wouldn't be a problem if male characters were only playable in 50% of games. it wouldn't be a problem if they were the majority at 60% or at 65%, but we all know it's not like that there's no sexism in choosing to make your lead character a male, but it's present when you ALWAYS choose to do that[/QUOTE] Movies, books and everything from 1900-2000 are guilty of this. It's changing now because people are able to write about more interesting female leads, it just didn't appeal to the larger audience at the time, which was mostly composed of males during that timeframe - lots of females are joining and female characters become more interesting. [editline]20th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;46970449]naughty dog had to fight to get ellie to be on the front in the cover of tlou[/QUOTE] “I believe there’s a misconception that if you put a girl or a woman on the cover, the game will sell less,” Neil Druckmann told [URL="http://www.vg247.com/2012/12/12/the-last-of-us-acting-out-the-end-of-the-world/"]VG247[/URL]. “I know I’ve been in discussions where we’ve been asked to push Ellie to the back and everyone at Naughty Dog just flat-out refused.” Okay. Sure. That's still a "More males then females in the industry" thing though. Yes, it was sexist.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;46970442]because one gender isn't getting NEARLY as many characters as the other, aka, there is a bias towards one gender being in lead roles, aka, sexism. look, this wouldn't be a problem if male characters were only playable in 50% of games. it wouldn't be a problem if they were the majority at 60% or at 65%, but we all know it's not like that there's no sexism in choosing to make your lead character a male, but it's present when you ALWAYS choose to do that[/QUOTE] This is related to the Black Ops discussion. A big problem is just how the military has worked historically and arguably still works even today. It's distinctly masculine, as pretty much every aspect of war is, and war games are some of the most popular out there. I don't think its fair to paint all games with the same brush of gender representation. A fantasy RPG has way less excuses to be a sausage fest than say, ArmA or Battlefield.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970359]But letting women fight in wars is TOO unrealistic right? Why is that? Are women not strong enough to fight for their country? Is that why you think its too unrealistic?[/QUOTE] Literally no one is saying this and you are strawmanning like a motherfucker. No, it's "Unrealistic" because in the 1960's, women culturally, didn't fight. You can't just go "Well, we're going to the 1960's, going to change some things for technology, might as well through out the culture of the time" fuck it, lets drop the time period all together at that point. You're imposing rules on stories to "Improve" them. This isn't really a good idea. [editline]19th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=RichyZ;46970449]naughty dog had to fight to get ellie to be on the front in the cover of tlou[/QUOTE] which sucks and really shouldn't have been a fight it should have just been there.

My dad works at nintendo and he told me that the women arent allowed to really make the games.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46970455]I get your point, but shouldn't we then remove all traces of history when it's offensive unless the specific point of it is to be a historical game? In a game that uses a modified reality for it's timeline, you're suggesting that there is no reason to keep it grounded in reality to give it a plausible feel. This to me is just not okay.[/QUOTE] I'm saying there's no reason to not increase representation when it would literally do nothing to alter the "plausible feel" of 100% fictional games. No one is saying that a game trying to actually be realistic and historical has to shoehorn diversity into it, however I am saying, for games that have pretty much no basis in reality, there's no reason not to.

[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;46970470]My dad works at nintendo and he told me that the women arent allowed to really make the games.[/QUOTE] I heard bayonetta was designed by a woman who was puppetted by a man my source is a urinal cake that had mystical carvings in it [editline]19th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=xxncxx;46970475]I'm saying there's no reason to not increase representation when it would literally do nothing to alter the "plausible feel" of 100% fictional games.[/QUOTE] But that's where we differ. You say "it does nothing". I say it "Does something". Care to argue about it or are you just going to insist it over and over again? I laid out my reasoning as to why it makes sense to not be hamfisting inclusiveness into every game.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970475]I'm saying there's no reason to not increase representation when it would literally do nothing to alter the "plausible feel" of 100% fictional games.[/QUOTE] You are deliberately misrepresenting the game if you think Black Ops is 100% fictional. [editline]19th January 2015[/editline] How can you say a game about the Cold War has "no basis in reality".

[QUOTE=Raidyr;46970483]You are deliberately misrepresenting the game if you think Black Ops is 100% fictional.[/QUOTE] Okay, 75%? The majority of the game is based in fiction, you can't argue that.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;46970475] No one is saying that a game trying to actually be realistic and historical has to shoehorn diversity into it, however I am saying, for games that have pretty much no basis in reality, there's no reason not to.[/QUOTE] But here's where you lost your argument. You picked a horrible example to call it a game that has "NO basis in reality" as it has a LOT of basis in reality. Like seriously?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;46970494]But here's where you lost your argument. You picked a horrible example to call it a game that has "NO basis in reality" as it has a LOT of basis in reality. Like seriously?[/QUOTE] Yup, zombies have a lot of basis in reality. Remember that outbreak that forced Kennedy into the pentagon in '65? Come the fuck on, its an arcade shooter, why is everyone defending it for "realism" whenever someone mentions women?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;46970442]because one gender isn't getting NEARLY as many characters as the other, aka, there is a bias towards one gender being in lead roles, aka, sexism. look, this wouldn't be a problem if male characters were only playable in 50% of games. it wouldn't be a problem if they were the majority at 60% or at 65%, but we all know it's not like that there's no sexism in choosing to make your lead character a male, but it's present when you ALWAYS choose to do that[/QUOTE] But how have you determined sexism is the cause? Is having a female protagonist criticized in gaming circles? If so how have the games with female leads been successful? Do the people making the male character majority do it because they dislike woman or because they are just simply making a male character. You have the statistics but you have yet to link it to the cause with actual evidence, instead you're making the assumption that it is because of sexism. That conclusion is contradicted by high praise for games like Portal, Metroid, Bayonetta, and many more. I even know several males who choose to make female characters in games that allow you to be either gender.