Support NeoGAF

[CapNBritain]

I have not found that to be accurate, at all in fact, I have only ever experienced the opposite, where the casual people who play candy crush and the like think they are video games and those who play the more traditional games dont count them as games.

As for your 1st point... I just dont see that many people heavily analysing the crap they watch. If they find it offensive they dont watch it, but they dont shut themselves off to everything. I mean, sure people who watch scary movies and get terrified dont like watching scary movies anymore, but I dont know anyone who ended up not liking anchorman and just gave up completely on comedies. Sure there are one offs, but I just dont think what you are infering is anywhere near the norm.

I really don't think people who play candy crush consider them the same as games like CoD. Ask someone who only plays "casual" games if they want to play Dragon's Crown or CoD, and I think they'll note the difference and act accordingly. Of course, that's just my impression compared to yours.

And I do think people analyze what they watch. Lots of people don't watch "chick flicks" or "horror movies". I don't care to watch movies based on YA novels like Twilight and Percey Jackson because, to me, they're generally terrible (although I try to keep an open mind if someone whose opinion I trust tells me such a movie is good).

 

[unbias]

I really don't think people who play candy crush consider them the same as games like CoD. Ask someone who only plays "casual" games if they want to play Dragon's Crown or CoD, and I think they'll note the difference and act accordingly. Of course, that's just my impression compared to yours.

And I do think people analyze what they watch. Lots of people don't watch "chick flicks" or "horror movies". I don't care to watch movies based on YA novels like Twilight and Percey Jackson because, to me, they're generally terrible (although I try to keep an open mind if someone whose opinion I trust tells me such a movie is good).

Bold - There is no need to differentiate for them, just becuase they enjoy different games, doesnt mean they dont think they are actually playing a video game. I've never had friends who play candy crush to think they dont play games.

Italicized - People think about what they watch, but not in some deep sociological way, but more in the vein of what they enjoy and what they are comfortable watching.

 

[CapNBritain]

Bold - There is no need to differentiate for them, just becuase they enjoy different games, doesnt mean they dont think they are actually playing a video game. I've never had friends who play candy crush to think they dont play games.

Italicized - People think about what they watch, but not in some deep sociological way, but more in the vein of what they enjoy and what they are comfortable watching.

Well, first let me address your point that there is no need to differentiate them. I think that there is. The craft, content, and demographics for a game like Candy Crush and a game like The Last of Us are very different. I know that some people think differentiating them drives a wedge in the videogame community, but it is what it is. To go back to my film analogy, there is a difference between the Godfather and White Chicks. Now, they are both movies, but saying there is no difference between them is disingenuous. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking "casual" games, "hardcore" games, or both! That's completely fine. I think that on places like GAF, we just use the "casual" and "hardcore" terms to differentiate the two, because everyone knows what they mean (usually). It's just a shorthand to let everyone know what we're talking about.

And your second point, about what people enjoy and are comfortable watching is my point exactly. There is a difference in what people are comfortable with and enjoy, and in videogames, those differences typically fall upon "casual" and "hardcore" lines only. While people here on GAF might know the difference between CoD and Dragon's Crown, to "casual" gamers it might all just be "hardcore" games that they aren't interested in. If a person is turned off by oversexualization in an JRPG, they might not want to give other RPGs a chance. But I think we're getting off topic.

 

[unbias]

Well, first let me address your point that there is no need to differentiate them. I think that there is. The craft, content, and demographics for a game like Candy Crush and a game like The Last of Us are very different. I know that some people think differentiating them drives a wedge in the videogame community, but it is what it is. To go back to my film analogy, there is a difference between the Godfather and White Chicks. Now, they are both movies, but saying there is no difference between them is disingenuous. Now, there's nothing wrong with liking "casual" games, "hardcore" games, or both! That's completely fine. I think that on places like GAF, we just use the "casual" and "hardcore" terms to differentiate the two, because everyone knows what they mean (usually). It's just a shorthand to let everyone know what we're talking about.

And your second point, about what people enjoy and are comfortable watching is my point exactly. There is a difference in what people are comfortable with and enjoy, and in videogames, those differences typically fall upon "casual" and "hardcore" lines only. While people here on GAF might know the difference between CoD and Dragon's Crown, to "casual" gamers it might all just be "hardcore" games that they aren't interested in. If a person is turned off by oversexualization in an JRPG, they might not want to give other RPGs a chance. But I think we're getting off topic.

I don't agree at all, and have never had someone who plays casual games to even know that kind of lingo(or seemingly care). And your over all point is lost on me, because I'm not sure what you are trying to say other then if someone doesnt like a single, more traditional game, that they are put off by all games; and I find that to be incredibly baseless as an over all generalization to the point of absurdness.

 

[CapNBritain]

I don't agree at all, and have never had someone who plays casual games to even know that kind of lingo(or seemingly care). And your over all point is lost on me, because I'm not sure what you are trying to say other then if someone doesnt like a single, more traditional game, that they are put off by all games; and I find that to be incredibly baseless as an over all generalization to the point of absurdness.

People might not know the terms, but IMHO more often than not they do know the difference between the two types of games and have a threshold level for what they are comfortable with. And I do think that certain things such as aesthetics and complexity can turn people off from whole swaths of games. But maybe we can just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[BanGy.nz]

Mattie Brice: On Anger

Meanness is toxic, it makes everyone uncomfortable and afraid to speak up, even if they are your allies and agree with you.

 

[Reishiki]

Mattie Brice: On Anger

Interesting now that larger blogs are picking up on the toxic undercurrent that I've seen growing within communities on both Livejournal and Tumblr since at least a couple of years ago. It's a shame that ideas and concepts that can be used to drive positive change have become just another stick to bully people with.

In fact, "anti-sex feminism" is just a strawman caricature of critical feminists made by defensive idiots who want to portray the critics as sex-hating prudes.

I'm pretty sure sex-negative feminism is a thing. Covers the viewpoints from being anti-sex-worker to the more radical 'All PiV sex is rape'. Dismissing radfems/TERFs as "fringe groups" or "a tiny minority" only services to minimize and erase the harm they do to others, especially transpeople.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

No, its insulting that someone who considers Tomb Raider a positive step forwards for gender equality then goes on to say that an outlet like GiantBomb is incompetent for not recognizing it as such in their GOTY discussions.

Meanwhile Giant Bomb are most likely thinking, "that's not the reason we didn't want to discuss it. I think you missed the point".

I think people who are sensitive to these sorts of things should feel free to criticize whatever and should attempt to justify their distaste for it. Being turned off in general by something on some visceral level is different than having it offend you in specific ways because of specific context, and I think the latter is a far better platform to start discussion than the former. And of course, you'd think anything which doesn't require defense should therefor be easy to defend, and personally I thought DC's art style and context at least as far as the main characters are concerned was, with the exceptions I've already mentioned.

Maybe I'm overreaching here, but I feel any discussion about games shouldn't stop short of including the gameplay itself, and it's not enough to say that a game is thematically offensive without discussing the game's systems and the player's agency. Dragon's Crown in general I think justifies its own existence through its quality as a game even if its presentation could be seen as offensive, and the sexualized main characters are treated with respect in context and are by definition the player's proxy.

Whether games themselves do real harm in society is beyond my scope to discuss as I'm no sociologist and can only fall back on my own experience. To me, they are entertainment, and, as immersive as entertainment can be, I have never once come close to confusing entertainment and reality. But I think when an individual has an issue with a specific item and wants to discuss it, encouraging them to feel bad for feeling bad about something rather than trying to understand what it is that's bothering them probably is harmful. I'm not saying that's what you're suggesting, I'm just thinking out loud here.

Which is a fair point. Video Games are form of expression and whether you like/dislike something within a game is your choice. But to act upon that and take that away from everyone else is unfair.
If the developers take out the Amazon of Dragons Crown just because it offends you, then I have a problem. If you don't like something then fine. I guess I'm pushing on the point of censorship but that is what it does come down to.

As for the article are you saying you're glad you got rid of a trophy in God of War, EVEN THOUGH the trophy doesn't actually relate to what people thought it was? Did you also want Dragons Crown to fail?

I'm not saying you did but I've read the post a few times over and that's the impression I get.

 

[Gun Animal]

I'm pretty sure sex-negative feminism is a thing. Covers the viewpoints from being anti-sex-worker to the more radical 'All PiV sex is rape'. Dismissing radfems/TERFs as "fringe groups" or "a tiny minority" only services to minimize and erase the harm they do to others, especially transpeople.

Always worth linking to, the Feminist Sex Wars.

Also, which Eevee represents Political Lesbians, who believe that homosexuality is a choice and advocate for lesbianism as a positive alternative to heterosexuality for women? Which Eevee represents feminists that practice freebleeding? Not that I'm arguing against either of these, but I do believe that game freak seriously needs to start designing more Eeveelutions.

 

[RoninChaos]

Ah, Child's Play. Something else I am very on the fence about.

Helping children? Yeah, I think that is way more important than worrying about the loose societal implications of the actions of Penny Arcade's creators. There are very few situations in which children won't come first. There's no denying that Child's Play has done very good things.

And yet, I hear little talk about it now outside of it being a sort of "get out of jail free" card, and that's not even PA's opponents burying talk of it. I don't even see much promotion of the charity itself from PA themselves, which makes it feel obsolete, as if its only existence IS a "get out of jail free card".

But it can't be, right? It still has to be up and running and helping children the world over, right?

Let me tell you something, sir, Child's Play is something no one should be on the fence about. I think Mike's actions are pretty immature but Child's Play is something that HELPS people. I sat in a hospital room with my kid when he was 4 and that hospital had games and things for kids to play. Things to make kids comfortable and allow kids to be kids. Being in the hospital sucks fucking ass and it's even worse for a kid. I saw kids from all over the hospital be able to get systems and games out into their rooms just so they could have something to do besides be in pain.

I was in tears thinking about it after I saw it. It's one thing to think of what child's play does in the abstract, it's another to see it in action.

Suggesting that it's main use is a get out of jail free card is fucking insulting. Take your ignorant ass to a hospital where child's play has been involved. Go to the child's cancer ward, and then come back here and tell me you're still in the fence about it because PA is the "ENEMY" to you and you can't seem to believe that they might actually be good people who said something stupid or insensitive. Child's play was borne out of the desire to do something good for KIDS. And sorry they don't advertise it as much as you'd like, that shouldn't be some sort of condemnation.

 

[Epcott]

This subject has bothered me recently too. I had no idea a journalist would comment on it.

People white-knighting with agendas are annoying, true. People who genuinely have a problem with a developer's "freedom of expression" can be both annoying and enlightening depending on the reader. What all parties have in common is that they all exercise the right to freedom of speech: Developers express how they feel in the game they craft, critics express how the game made them feel.

Video-games is a medium of escapism and leisure, dependent upon consumer's purchases. This means that it's up to that consumer to shut off the background noise of journalism, gamer criticism, and influence... decide how the game makes them feel, and determine if it was worth the investment of time and money. If the gamer dislikes the content, they simply show disdain with their wallet, contact the company, or do nothing.

The problem arises when journalists overstep their reach and alter a product meant for the consumer masses based on their own specific personal taste, either intentionally or unintentionally, often with a product the consumer has not even had the pleasure of playing yet.

I think THAT is the hang up many gamers have.

Personally, I'm still disgusted N'Gai Croal had as much influence as he did over Capcom's RE5 "villager" decision as if his concerns were indicative of an entire race, globally. That was years ago, and I still see echos of it now when I read about God of War trophies, Dragon's Crown, Hotline Miami 2 and Tomb Raider concerns. Tastes are subjective: I have lesbian friends who love God of War, but hate Tomb Raider... and ones who prefer COD over AC: Liberation. I think critics forget that much too often. I do love podcasts, publications, and reviews, so I believe journalists/critics have their place, but never forget it's the consumer who the game is meant for, not the critic.

I just have two main points to make here:
Journalists: Please stop playing the role of ambassador of the people. You may feel entitled to do so, but you're drowning out the voices of those you think you're benefiting.

Developers: Just because one critic has a concern for something, that does not mean he/she represents the thousands or millions willing to purchase that very same content. If you feel there is a problem with your product, there are better avenues of input at your disposal than a lone review.

 

[Darmani]

It certainly seems then like this "small, vocal bunch" is a growing part of those with the biggest microphone - paid journalists and critics on some of the most prominent gaming sites, and I don't see many people on the social justice side calling them out for it. Those people are applauded and patted on the back, while any who oppose their call for doing away with certain things they don't like are painted as backwards, immature, or bigots - and then they get to publically trade high fives with their peers for showing those ignorants what's what. The OP calling some of those tactics out was refreshing to see, but unfortunately his goals are still the same.

That's going to happen because for all of internet's freedom and everyone's collective windbat theories on the evil of Karl Rove not 7 years ago internet forum mods have more control over speech and its participants in their well of communication than Stalin could imagine. I've literally been given citations on political thread debating the merits of a change to abortion for being pro-life because it was harmful to the women posters.

You can be anti-prolife, prochoice, pro-abortion, and demand your surrogate wombs and cloning and genemodding. I get there is a real pressure and harm suffered for being a woman who openly admits to having an abortion and supporting that option for others. I insulted no woman or poster or judged them. I was acccused by one poster for calling women who are pregnant outsite of marriage sluts and when I responded I got the citation. THEN that I supported a type a law I didn't outline. Posters got to do this to me because they were aligned with the culture of the mods and the forum.

On the internet you have the power to silence those who disagree DIRECTLY or can get a large enough cabal to marginalize and be on the line to report you for trigger warnings...
Kaboom.

The only thing SJWs are doing is demanding the controls not fighting for an open, equal, and diverse forum and they will say so so long as their opponents not accuse them of doing so. They have an orthodoxy they want followed.

And that's why people dislike them. They're stated goal is remove your power over a subculture and replace it with our own. Gee, my opens just won't open for that.

Its not an echo chamber, they don't actively cull and purge dissent. The only thing I can positively say about social activism on the internet is it highlights this problem but the proposed solutions are ALWAYS conversion on hammerpoint never a means of live and let live.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

OP, I get what you're saying, but it's hard to discuss these issues because, while there's a group of reasonable people on either side of them, as well as a good amount of people in the center who don't have an opinion one way or the other, there are also rabid misogynists on the one hand, and 'white knights' (for lack of a better term) on the other, who will defend certain things even when there's proof that not all is as it appears to be.

A good example is the whole Anita Sarkeesian thing. The misogynist brigade came out loud and early to complain about her Kickstarter, and their ridiculous behavior undermined the truth that came out much later - first, that a lot of the footage in her videos wasn't gameplay footage that she had captured herself, but rather stuff that she'd taken from other YouTube videos, and second, that anonymously posted video that was recorded long before the Kickstarter where Sarkeesian said she wasn't a gamer and wasn't interested in video games, directly contradicting what she'd said in her Kickstarter.

Unfortunately, by this time, the well had become so poisoned by the misogynists that no one could simply make the observation that Sarkeesian had been dishonest during her campaign and didn't even seem to be playing the games she was critiquing, but simply using uncredited YouTube footage. And the 'white knights' had become so committed to Sarkeesian as a symbol of a cause (one which I think is very noble) that they maybe found themsels unable to back off and say "OK, maybe this person isn't what she initially presented herself as."

So that intransigence means that legitimate discussion about these issues can't take place without someone getting very angry (sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not), or banned, or being accused of being sexist or worse.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I'm pretty sure sex-negative feminism is a thing.

I already said as much. But it has nothing to do with any of this. Criticizing the objectification of women in media does not make one a "sex-negative feminist".

Covers the viewpoints from being anti-sex-worker to the more radical 'All PiV sex is rape'. Dismissing radfems/TERFs as "fringe groups" or "a tiny minority" only services to minimize and erase the harm they do to others, especially transpeople.

Whaaaaat....? They are fringe groups. Do you have any evidence that they aren't?

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

It was a bad situation from stem to stern, and that there are still people trying to rationalize it or make it about something other than Kotaku's not-at-all-subtle statements is disheartening.

It didn't blow up until the Vanillaware artist made that gay 'joke'. People who defend him always seem to conveniently forget that.

 

[SolidSnakex]

It didn't blow up until the Vanillaware artist made that gay 'joke'. People who defend him always seem to conveniently forget that.

It blew up the second that the 14 year old comment was posted. It just got worse when Kamitani posted the dwarf art.

Anyway, i'll post this again since it's still the best article about DC's art

http://art-eater.com/2013/03/from-m...ragons-crown-trailer-is-full-of-epic-homages/

It actually shows how well thought out and designed it is. Something many people never gave it credit for in their rush to make accusations about it or its artist.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

It blew up the second that the 14 year old comment was posted. It just got worse when Kamitani posted the dwarf art.

Well I guess that's true, any obvious clickbait article will cause a shitstorm.

Anyway, i'll post this again since it's still the best article about DC's art

http://art-eater.com/2013/03/from-m...ragons-crown-trailer-is-full-of-epic-homages/

It actually shows how well thought out and designed it is. Something many people never gave it credit for in their rush to make accusations about it or its artist.

Nobody said he's not talented. He can be both a great artist and have regressive views. I don't why this is so hard to understand.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Nobody said he's not talented. He can be both a great artist and have regressive views. I don't why this is so hard to understand.

Which views are those exactly? I've never really seen interviews where Kamitani speaks about his personal views on subjects other than games.

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

Which views are those exactly? I've never really seen interviews where Kamitani speaks about his personal views on subjects other than games.

He did when called the Kotaku guy gay for criticizing his art.

 

[Reishiki]

Whaaaaat....? They are fringe groups. Do you have any evidence that they aren't?

I think this sums up my sentiment better.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

So,
a) still no evidence, and
b) still no link between "sex-negative radfems" and critics of game art

Okay.

 

[SolidSnakex]

He did when called the Kotaku guy gay for criticizing his art.

He certainly didn't call him gay. Even in his apology he noted that he didn't know that it could be taken that way (pointing out that he ran his comment through an automated translator, and everyone knows how badly those can go).

 

[Son of Cervantes]

He did when called the Kotaku guy gay for criticizing his art.

He didn't say that at all. Could be taken as implied, but I think he was just making a joke that he did cheesecake poses with the male characters too.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

He certainly didn't call him gay. Even in his apology he noted that he didn't know that it could be taken that way (pointing out that he ran his comment through an automated translator, and everyone knows how badly those can go).

Oh come on, "you might prefer these half naked muscular men, wink wink" is the same thing as calling him gay. He probably apologized for that because he realized it was childish.

Anyway, the Kotaku / Kamitani thing was over and done with, both sides apologized, I don't even know why anyone would still be talking about this...

 

[GoodCoffeeJoey]

He certainly didn't call him gay. Even in his apology he noted that he didn't know that it could be taken that way (pointing out that he ran his comment through an automated translator, and everyone knows how badly those can go).

He didn't say that at all. Could be taken as implied, but I think he was just making a joke that he did cheesecake poses with the male characters too.

 

[xBladeM6x]

How much have you actually had to deal with that? I don't think I've ever really encountered that in real life, as funny as the disparate quotes assembled in Tumblr.txt are

I actually have had to deal with something exactly like that (different word however). It's agitating beyond reason.

 

[masterwok]

I already said as much. But it has nothing to do with any of this. Criticizing the objectification of women in media does not make one a "sex-negative feminist".

If only there was only criticism and not over the top protesting and witch hunting...

Even with the criticism though it is all about being sex-negative anyway.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

If only there was only criticism and not over the top protesting and witch hunting...

Such as? Those cancelling their Bravely Default pre-orders because "censorship"? Yeah that's certainly over-the-top protesting... xD

Even with the criticism though it is all about being sex-negative anyway.

Horseshit.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Such as? Those cancelling their Bravely Default pre-orders because "censorship"? Yeah that's certainly over-the-top protesting... xD


Horseshit.

Sorry, anybody who has the problem with the massive misogyny and sexist views just under the surface of a lot of gaming (and other types of entertainment) is just a prude. The Internet said so.

 

[MoGamesXNA]

.

 

[ixix]

It didn't blow up until the Vanillaware artist made that gay 'joke'. People who defend him always seem to conveniently forget that.

I don't think that the statement that the situation was bad from stem to stern can be reasonably interpreted to excuse a particular party from blame for poor behavior (and in employing that particular phrasing I was actually attempting to do the exact opposite) but if you're objecting to the fact that I did not specifically address George Kamitani's initial response of a drawing of several naked musclemen paired with a terse, babelfish'd explication, allow me to do so here: it was a poor response, and George Kamitani acted rightly in apologizing for it even if he did not (as he claims) intend it as a homophobic pejorative.

 

[Darmani]

Oh come on, "you might prefer these half naked muscular men, wink wink" is the same thing as calling him gay. He probably apologized for that because he realized it was childish.

Anyway, the Kotaku / Kamitani thing was over and done with, both sides apologized, I don't even know why anyone would still be talking about this...

Because its part of a trend

Is the general thing pointed out.

I'm torn like this as I was the original Sarkeesian kickstarter. I didn't support the oodles or crappy abuse but I didn't think getting sexually harassed over the internet deserved financial support. Internet spoke for me. And I think now that the bloom is off her rose I'm okay with how things shook out. I have to own up we have some assholes on our side. but goddamned is it nice criticizing the woman and her tvtropes-esque coverage isn't equated with being mysognist. All it took was her expressing an actual opinion of some contravesial stance too. As I view her and the the things surrounding her as cause for this radicalization of discussion...
I just hope it promotes more nuanced conversations as to condemnation from on high.

 

[Reishiki]

a) still no evidence

The point is that dismissal with the phrase "fringe groups" does more harm than good. I mean, I could point you towards something like this or the protests that were required to prevent an exceptionally nasty radfem from holding an entire conference to espouse her bigotry (Not to mention this had to happen twice).

How much do I have to take before they're not considered "fringe groups" enough for people to actually care?

b) still no link between "sex-negative radfems" and critics of game art

Your statement here:

In fact, "anti-sex feminism" is just a strawman caricature of critical feminists made by defensive idiots who want to portray the critics as sex-hating prudes.

Suggests you were being dismissive of the entire concept of sex negative feminism, rather than referring to the stuff specifically referring to the issues surrounding Dragon's Crown. If I have the wrong idea here, then I apologize.

 

[masterwok]

The core of the issue is 'socially aware' games criticism.

I've stopped reading online reviews because they've moved on from being a discussion about a game (and only the game) to: "This game is a 7/10...meanwhile here's my views of X topic of my personal political/social item".

No one cares. No one wants to be preached to. Games writers/journalists need to learn that game reviews shouldn't be used as a preaching post.

Completely agree.

However we've learned that making a big deal out of nothing may lead to a big pay off, such as increased site traffic and even money donations like what Anita S. pulled off.

 

[Metrotab]

It didn't blow up until the Vanillaware artist made that gay 'joke'. People who defend him always seem to conveniently forget that.

That joke has nothing to do with the game itself though.

 

[Karkador]

The core of the issue is 'socially aware' games criticism.

I've stopped reading online reviews because they've moved on from being a discussion about a game (and only the game) to: "This game is a 7/10...meanwhile here's my views of X topic of my personal political/social item".

No one cares. No one wants to be preached to. Games writers/journalists need to learn that game reviews shouldn't be used as a preaching post.

Would you be as put off if the criticisms were better made, or do you just not want to hear about it at all?

Also, I think you're underestimating how many people care about the topic, just because you don't personally care or relate. You're totally free to not read reviews from people you don't care about, but why should game writers only be allowed to slam games for some subjective reasons, but not others?

 

[Zafir]

Completely agree.

However we've learned that making a big deal out of nothing may lead to a big pay off, such as increased site traffic and even money donations like what Anita S. pulled off.

She made a big deal about nothing?

The ironic thing about her kickstarter was that everyone complaining/threatening her about the fact she wanted to make that video series was the reason it got all that money.

 

[Cyrano]

I do wonder how long the same non-arguments will be presented as evidence before the community as a whole can move past the fact that people are actually entitled to their opinion and that games do not elicit robot-like responses from their audience.

People aren't writing about sexism because it's new or edgy or different, they're writing about it because they're tired of the same issues being repeated, seemingly without any insight. These issues only serve to subordinate and extort populations who already have a rough time as it is and these depictions in media serve as reinforcement to their subordinated and extorted positions in society.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I do wonder how long the same non-arguments will be presented as evidence before the community as a whole can move past the fact that people are actually entitled to their opinion and that games do not elicit robot-like responses from their audience.

People aren't writing about sexism because it's new or edgy or different, they're writing about it because they're tired of the same issues being repeated, seemingly without any insight. These issues only serve to subordinate and extort populations who already have a rough time as it is and these depictions in media serve as reinforcement to their subordinated and extorted positions in society.

No, no, you don't understand. They just hate sex, those prudes. It's the only explanation for why they want to censor our games and destroy gaming.