academia tends to attract them [crazies] due to its safe space
I don't understand this.
academia tends to attract them [crazies] due to its safe space
Great way of arguing, everything is strawman and denial denial denial. Even though we have a crapload of examples even in this forum with feminists obsessing about regulating sex in the media because they consider it degrading for women.
When you look at one female character in a game and see that she's sexualized, there's nothing wrong with that. When you look at a whole group of females in games and see that a good majority of them are sexualized, that's a problem. Aside from the lack of variety, it paints a picture of "women are supposed to be this way," which is particularly harmful as a trend.
You have a supreme misunderstanding of feminism and the issues they take on.
Feminists celebrate female sexuality but they resist male control and manipulation over it. You want to know why they want to "regulate" it in the media? Because its portrayals in the media have consistently existed as a male-controlled exploit that fosters unrealistic, repressive, and even damaging expectations for them. It often involves submissive and one-dimensional roles wherein they are less an actual person and more of a prize for male characters (and, by extension the audience) while also creating severe issues relating to body image and self-esteem/self-worth. When approached properly it does not degrade women. Unfortunately, it has degraded them frequently since it isn't approached properly and since there are enormous double standards regarding male and female sexuality especially regarding the agency women possess over their own bodies (consider slut-shaming and victim blaming). This constant over-sexualization and objectification is harmful because it normalizes these beliefs and behaviors within a culture, especially when they are so prevalent in all media all the time.
There is NOTHING wrong with portraying female sexuality - if anything it is worth portraying. But it is worth portraying meaningfully and realistically. The difference lies in the male-led over-sexualization that has pervaded the media for decades which has served as nothing more than prurient enticement without actually considering the female perspective or experience.
And trying to equate that to male sexualization is completely misguided since the experiences of each are completely different, especially when women are met with these inane portrayals on a more consistent basis and from a much younger age, all of which reinforces the wrong ideas of sex and "expected" behavior of them. Of course men also face problems with these portrayals as well, especially when it encourages them to uphold these beliefs, but also when it denies them a superior understanding of actual female sexuality and not the one that's marketed to sate the appetites of teenage hormones.
So basically the female has to be 14 years old in order to not be viewed and designed in a sexual manner?
I personally didn't find anything attractive about Chloe even if they tried. And the guy from LoU is Drake aged 15 or 20 years. But I guess I see what you're saying though.
You have a supreme misunderstanding of feminism and the issues they take on.
Feminists celebrate female sexuality but they resist male control and manipulation over it. You want to know why they want to "regulate" it in the media? Because its portrayals in the media have consistently existed as a male-controlled exploit that fosters unrealistic, repressive, and even damaging expectations for them. It often involves submissive and one-dimensional roles wherein they are less an actual person and more of a prize for male characters (and, by extension the audience) while also creating severe issues relating to body image and self-esteem/self-worth. When approached properly it does not degrade women. Unfortunately, it has degraded them frequently since it isn't approached properly and since there are enormous double standards regarding male and female sexuality especially regarding the agency women possess over their own bodies (consider slut-shaming and victim blaming). This constant over-sexualization and objectification is harmful because it normalizes these beliefs and behaviors within a culture, especially when they are so prevalent in all media all the time.
There is NOTHING wrong with portraying female sexuality - if anything it is worth portraying. But it is worth portraying meaningfully and realistically. The difference lies in the male-led over-sexualization that has pervaded the media for decades which has served as nothing more than prurient enticement without actually considering the female perspective or experience.
And trying to equate that to male sexualization is completely misguided since the experiences of each are completely different, especially when women are met with these inane portrayals on a more consistent basis and from a much younger age, all of which reinforces the wrong ideas of sex and "expected" behavior of them. Of course men also face problems with these portrayals as well, especially when it encourages them to uphold these beliefs, but also when it denies them a superior understanding of actual female sexuality and not the one that's marketed to sate the appetites of teenage hormones.
As for the topic at hand, I loved the portrayal of Ellie in The Last of Us and while she is not the first "strong female character" out there, at the very least she's another recent example of developers pushing the medium in a better direction.
Following your extremely flawed logic bolded above the only solution to that "problem" is gender segregation in the media since any portrayal of female sexuality by men is inherently problematic unless it's regulated by feminists. And why are you assuming that your group only knows the true standard of "realistic" female sexuality?
In a world where human sexuality and pop-culture play a game of chicken and egg how the fuck have feminists discovered the true standard of female sexuality?
But they will NEVER be able to "regulate" it in the media because it involves too much money, for which I am thankful. It's pretty much a moot point
The most they can do is sit in various corners of the internet, whining and complaining, while we will continue to enjoy boobage, cleavage, ass shots, and provocative outfits w/o the guilt tripping.
Following your extremely flawed logic bolded above the only solution to that "problem" is gender segregation in the media since any portrayal of female sexuality by men is inherently problematic unless it's regulated by feminists. And why are you assuming that your group only knows the true standard of "realistic" female sexuality?
In a world where human sexuality and pop-culture play a game of chicken and egg how the fuck have feminists discovered the true standard of female sexuality?
Just wanted to say TLoU is an excellent game and not nearly as pretentious as the game's creators now conspire to make it sound.
Can I just ask one question? Do you dislike the character of Ellie? Would you hate to live in a world where there were more characters like her?
Avatar: Luigi Hat, W101 mask.
Yep, a completely objective remark right?
Pesonally, I don't even mind if ND acts pretentious about TLoU, they made an amazing NEW IP in an industry full of rehashes and HD remakes.
The game? Sure.ME2 was freaking awesome.
The game? Sure.
The pandering and overly sexualized outfits and camera angles with Miranda? Embarrassing.
I limited my search to the last month but they've been quiet. Of course, now I'm curious to know what extremist vile feminists you're referring to who get greater media attention. We all know who the Phelps are by name.
Well now I don't know who or what exactly you're referring to.
It might be more more constructive if you were more specific as to what you want anyone to do about them.
The game? Sure.
The pandering and overly sexualized outfits and camera angles with Miranda? Embarrassing.
The game? Sure.
The pandering and overly sexualized outfits and camera angles with Miranda? Embarrassing.
man. the last of us was really good and i liked the characters, gameplay, world, and pretty much everything about it after the initial first few hours. but holy crap druckmann and company's ego makes it impossible to like the company behind the game.
Avatar: Luigi Hat, W101 mask.
Yep, a completely objective remark right?
Pesonally, I don't even mind if ND acts pretentious about TLoU, they made an amazing NEW IP in an industry full of rehashes and HD remakes.
because of one comment?
druckmann said:Were trying to say something about human beings and how they exist. Now necessarily just in this setting, but in every setting. We try so hard at Naughty Dog to push things and then games come out that are fun and exciting and get visceral things right, but to read in reviews that they have an amazing story is disheartening to us because we work so hard at it.
balestra said:We're trying to move the medium of video games into an area elevated in the same manner of respect of film. We want to redefine what our medium is even called. 'Video game' is not an accurate name anymore. It is not necessarily a game with rules and a winner and a loser. It's an experience.
We've moved the entire atmosphere of the game to a higher age group. Gamers like me are still playing. I'm 33 and what I want now is very different from what I wanted ten years ago. Ten years ago you didn't have the choice to play Grand Theft Auto. You played Mario because Mario was what's available.
Well, Pandora's box has opened and younger kids want to play what older kids are playing and older kids are playing Grand Theft Auto.
This isn't about saving a princess; it's about revenge, betrayal. You might think that doesn't sound original, but think of Mario going out for revenge, or Sonic. It's not a character action thing to do.
---
It definitely redoubled my belief that you have to push the genre forward, because when I put that game in and expected Miyamoto greatness, and the characters came out saying: "Bloop! Bloop! Bloop!" I was like, that is 1997. I don't need that in 2003.
Give me a character with a voice and a personality, and more of a cinematic experience. Don't give me Mario from 15 years ago. They just haven't moved on; that's not their focus. I think its very hard for Miyamoto to both run Nintendo - which he does to a certain extent - and get into the game design.
So basically the female has to be 14 years old in order to not be viewed and designed in a sexual manner?
I personally didn't find anything attractive about Chloe even if they tried. And the guy from LoU is Drake aged 15 or 20 years. But I guess I see what you're saying though.
unrealistic proportions.
I stared at her ass for a while.
I probably shouldn't admit that on a public forum.
Lol. That cheers me up a bit from German elections.here's jason rubin comparing jak ii to super mario sunshine:
[stuff]
quotes
Too bad Ellen Page gets nekkid in Beyond!
Actually, they don't.These people view themselves as saviors of the video game industry.
It isn't sad, because they are somehow right. Some gamers aren't interested in Mario games after a certain age and want a story/developed character in their games.it's sad, but a bit amusing to watch. it's been happening for a long time though (that's where the sad part comes in). here's jason rubin comparing jak ii to super mario sunshine:
I seriously doubt you read everything he said -- including the surrounding statements to establish a contextual understanding -- in the one minute it took you to type out this nonsense.Just wanted to say TLoU is an excellent game and not nearly as pretentious as the game's creators now conspire to make it sound.
Please do not make false assumptions about what I said and put words in my mouth to reach a simplistic conclusion. Not all depictions of female sexuality by men are poor and demeaning. You have to have a poor grasp of culture, however, if you do not realize that this has been the case for decades. Various media from books to TV to film to video games have been consistently male-dominated, from content creators to publishers, and they have constantly been guilty of these portrayals while women have struggled to be as influential within the same fields (though of course there are successful women in there, but there are still roadblocks in the way). Yes, there have been men who have tackled female sexuality and female characters in general meaningfully and commendably, but that doesn't mean the problem has vanished.
Also "feminists" aren't some super exclusive club or "group." It's sad that the term has developed a negative connotation when all it emphasizes is gender equality. Anyone who believes in that and empathizes with women based on the demonstrable inequality they face should be proud to call themselves a feminist. It isn't about being better than men or putting men down, it's about being equal and it benefits men just as much as it does women. It's like calling someone a non-racist and acting like it's an offensive term or describes some fringe group that doesn't belong in the majority. And yes, there are obviously disagreements within feminist theory, but the notion of portraying honest female sexuality and experiences isn't some controversial idea. It's simply about recognizing that women can be unique and capable as well. There isn't one simple "all female sexuality is X" standard just like there isn't a simple "all male sexuality is X" rule. Sexuality is fluid and novel. The fact that female sexuality (and even male sexuality to a large extent, though not nearly as much) continues to be so black-and-white within the media though means this is still an issue worth discussing, exploring, and changing.
And at the very least is there really anything wrong with wanting more variety and diversity among characters? It's pretty tiring being exposed to the same old characterizations and tropes over and over.
Actually, they don't.
It isn't sad, because they are somehow right. Some gamers aren't interested in Mario games after a certain age and want a story/developed character in their games.
Shocking, right?
You know what is actually sad? You shitting on the Jak franchise + Jason Rubin + somethimes even on current Naughty Dog for nearly over a decade now.
Let it finally go.
You caught me. I should've said, "The game is excellent, and not at all pretentious like out-of-context quotes make it sound."I seriously doubt you read everything he said -- including the surrounding statements to establish a contextual understanding -- in the one minute it took you to type out this nonsense.
Here's the actual link: http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/19/4744008/making-the-last-of-us-ps3
Uh, what? I'm saying TLoU is an EXCELLENT game. How would my avatar undermine that? Have you not seen my one billion and one threads about PS3 and PC games? TLoU is my current GOTY, for chrissakes.Avatar: Luigi Hat, W101 mask.
Yep, a completely objective remark right?
Pesonally, I don't even mind if ND acts pretentious about TLoU, they made an amazing NEW IP in an industry full of rehashes and HD remakes.
I guess you haven't seen his posts regarding Jak/Rubin in the past?He's not "shitting" on those. He's bringing up some examples of how they might think too highly of themselves. Just because you're older now doesn't mean you can enjoy fames woth little to no story. Story was not the reason people like Mario, and there story-driven games back then and not just Mario. Story-driven games are ND's specialty, but it doesn't mean everyone should follow after them in that regard.
No, because their storytelling is currently one of the best if not THE BEST in the gaming industry. They don't need to tell such a story in a "big/open-world game", because their current/favourite genre are action-adventures, which are simply more linear than an open-world / inFAMOUS-like game.Like others have said, UC did change the industry for the worst in some aspects. Not every game fits that style. If it did, then I'd like to see ND keep that story telling in a big, open world game, cinematics and all without diluting the story. If they did thay, then they'd be close to changing something. As it stands, they're only following industry standards.
dumb, boring, useless words
Wonderful Luigi Tits
For me, it's the best game I've ever played.Ellie was alright.
The Last of Us was just alright.
For me, it's the best game I've ever played.
You see, opinions! Everyone has one.
Just look at that Luigi hat. The bias is overwhelming.
Sarcasm, I hope?[QUOTE GuessMyUserName;83176277]Wonderful Luigi Tits/QUOTE]
Not a phrase I ever expected to see.
My favourite part of the gameNothing wrong with that. Still enjoyed the game, but wasn't crazy about like everyone else (except for the Winter section, that shit was awesome).
Many famous writers and film makers are pretentious. It's something I accepted for myself and I don't let it hamper my enjoyment of their work.It's funny how I sense some kind of 'David Cage syndrome' here...