Scopa
The Tribe Has Spoken
What crazy nutjob did this? Arthur Gies?When you compare a Monster Hunter game with Imperialison and somehow even connect it to Trumps family you lost the fucking plot by a mile.
What crazy nutjob did this? Arthur Gies?When you compare a Monster Hunter game with Imperialison and somehow even connect it to Trumps family you lost the fucking plot by a mile.
Austin WalkerWhat crazy nutjob did this? Arthur Gies?
I would like to know how anyone can take this guy seriously, and how the hell he has a job writing about video games.
Let's say for the sake of arguement, that a massive SWJ or feminist agenda was pushed, (which again I honestly highly doubt). One of the most common things in these type of agenda's is to make white men the enemy to almost unbelievable cartoon like levels. If that were too happen, I could easily see that detracting away from the overall narrative and flow of the game to a point of detriment, but would game journalists mark the game down for this out of fear from backlash? Like I said, highly unlikely that this will be the case, but as we are talking about ND's agenda's or what is perceived as an agenda, thought it was interesting to discuss.
Best example?
Arthur gies who openly hate eveything Japanese reviewed Bayonetta 2 said the game is perfect except the sexualization and gave it a 7.5. And there are tons of reviews like this today. When you critizicize e a game like Far Cry 5 for the reason that black people and women were enemies while also arguing how a Kingdom Come is not diverse enough. You lost your plot and ability to review games. When you compare a Monster Hunter game with Imperialison and somehow even connect it to Trumps family you lost the fucking plot by a mile.
Agenda driven reviews are nothing new in games media because of the agenda driven people who review these games. Same with the movie inustry by the way. Example Everyone who did not like Black panther was called racist. People did not even review the game but the social importance of the movie. Same with Last Jedi which was praised for its progressive message while totally ignoring the actual plot of the movie.
I would like to know how anyone can take this guy seriously, and how the hell he has a job writing about video games.
He sounds like an idiot to me. Where's the evidence that he is smart?Because it's very thoughtful and a smart dude. I'm curious as to what the connection is with Monster Hunter 5 and Trump though. It may have been more to it than that raw comparison.
He sounds like an idiot to me. Where's the evidence that he is smart?
I think it’s when you persistently whine, love the sound of your own voice and never shut up = smart.He sounds like an idiot to me. Where's the evidence that he is smart?
Now of course, Sarkeesian is just one example. But it does prove that the things Jon Neu brought up do happen, and that these people are given a platform, and in many cases get to drown out more nuanced positions.
There've always been women who enjoy nerd culture, and it only makes sense they want comics and games made for them as well. No-one's arguing with that.
The problem arises when people start critiquing games and elements because they want to change the social landscape, something some members in this thread seem to also be advocating for, claiming "This is something gaming needs" and "We need to show normal gay characters (to reinforce that gay people are normal)." That's an agenda, and that's potentially using video games as propaganda. Like Sarkeesian.
I don't buy the argument that this is something gamers want either. I think a lot of these games are popular in spite of their inclusive policies, not because of them. Just look at all the movies and comics that tried to pander to feminist whims and failed spectacularly. Marvel is in deep doodoo because of their efforts to diversify, with the situation ending up being no one's actually interested in their diverse and inclusive comic characters.
The waypoint dudes aren't dumb but they're so ideologically possessed that they may as well be. Here is Patrick Klepek criticizing RAGE 2's marketing for using the word "insane."
If you're so far down the SJW rabbit hole of policing language that the word "insane" is too offensive for you, then yeah, I can't take you seriously. You're just too far gone.
Here's further insanity. A screen grab of a (since deleted) exchange in the thread for this tweet wherein Patrick laments "goofing up" and occasionally saying the word "crazy." It's literally beyond parody at this point.
(archive link for the screengrab)
"Is there a favored non-problematic alternative for 'insane'? asking in good faith"
I wouldn't have said that, Ellie was just Ellie.^ it was fucking weird seeing ellie stand around like a bar bro checking out the ladies. like i dont think ive ever seen a woman do that in all my life. she was prowling at a comical level. for some reason no one brings up that embarrassing part
I wouldn't have said that, Ellie was just Ellie.
I did notice the Jesse was apparently a dick in the eyes of Ellie and Dina, although he didn't seem like a bad guy.
Aliens.Jesus christ who are these people lmao
I know ... it boggles the mind sometimes.Jesus christ who are these people lmao
Game designers should not be at the mercy of gaming journalists.. I get that it’s unavoidable but the public has to see through the nonsense and judge a game on its merits .. I don’t think there’s enough people in the marketplace who buy games solely on a games moral compass or if it checks off a sjw checkboxQuite true, but with the potential backlash from social media and extremist fans (I've seen a lot of these on Era), do you trust game journalists to be open and criticize the game accordingly? Imagine, hypothetically, that the games story or game-play was somehow negatively effected by Naughty Dog's supposedly pushing of certain agenda's, can you imagine if this game received and was generally deserving of a 7 out of 10. I couldn't even dare fathom the shit show that would happen.
Yeah but they're arguing that it's "troubling" or that it's "ruining" things.
I just want to say that GAF has changed for the better. I found myself avoiding subjects (self censoring) on many occasions, would pop into to interesting threads only to leave minutes later having seen some of the responses, and 'BANNED' members. I would often look at what they'd written to try and find out why they're been banned but could hardly ever find anything other than having 'the wrong opinion'. That 'wrong opinion' being anything other than PC. But it seems 'that' mentality has moved to 'another' forum now ...
This thread is a perfect example of why those people should never have been banned. For the first time in a long time, through lengthy discussion, some of us have been able to differentiate our opinions from extremists (on both sides). Oh, they exist, we all know that, but at last we can begin the process of building bridges again between the majority, who are rational, thoughtful and intelligent people. THAT is how a good forum works. We may not agree but we CAN agree that labelling only kills conversation (and reputations). We've all heard the saying 'attack the point, not the person'. Let's continue to embrace that.
So ... Yep, GAF is a much better forum now and all power to anyone with an opinion, regardless of what it is.
Absolutely no one is saying that.
You seem to confuse feminism with women.
Everybody is happy that women have their place and their women oriented games/characters
Having people in the gaming industry saying we should not use the word insane because it's "insensitive" it's a microcosmos of what people mean when we are talking about "troubling" politics being injected in the gaming industry in an artificial way and potentially (and more than potentially) "ruining" things.
You argument doesn't make any sense. You still haven't told me how you are going to "force" anything on me. I'm waiting. Better yet. Write a book. Or show a me a book you think agrees with you politically Then force it on me.
There is nothing "forced" about Ellie being lesbian, by the way.
Pretty much everything can be a social issue. Even black main characters used to be (are?) a social issues in some countries/places. I'm not sure why ND or anyone else should care people can't deal with homosexuality.
What propaganda anyway? They are going to turn our children gay?
Ellie was a lesbian in TloU (Or rather the DLC reveals she was a lesbian, the main game doesn't touch her sexuality). Nothing is forced. There are only two official gay characters in ND games, Ellie and Bill (I'm not going to include Ellie's girlfriend since we don't know much about her personality yet other than what the trailer showed us).
Ugh... I'm a man and a feminist so not sure where you got this. Based on your earlier comment "now that geek culture is popular and sexy, obviously- is because they associate that culture with males" I would have assumed you were confusing the two.
What's your issue, here? These are genuine issues and since you mentioned that you're a male feminist I think you should respect these criticisms and try and be as rational as possible. It's just a fact that there are more liberal developers than conservative gamers in the video game industry, if not then it's debatable and they just have louder voices and have more influence because of that.Did a quick ctrl+f on the youtube comments:
"It's very troubling, and it's infesting every element of my hobbies"
"Ohh PLEASE do not let Rockstar Games become affected with an agenda and ruin GTA6."
Here's a GameFAQs thread: Can we all agree feminists and SJW are ruining gaming and gaming journalism?
Here's a r/Gaming thread: SJW culture is RUINING GAMING
Here's a fun subreddit r/SJWHATE (54K subs by the way): Social Justice Warriors have turned the video gaming industry into a toxic industry
Here's some even stronger language: "So I don't know how many individuals on this subreddit are video Gamers but as we know sjw's have managed to poison the world of video gaming with there cancerous rhetoric."
- Liberals are now whining about "toxic meritocracy" of 'competitive' video games
I'm not here to be preached at that my gender is inferior especially when indulging in my hobby.
Forums are a lot like console wars.I just want to say that GAF has changed for the better. I found myself avoiding subjects (self censoring) on many occasions, would pop into to interesting threads only to leave minutes later having seen some of the responses, and 'BANNED' members. I would often look at what they'd written to try and find out why they're been banned but could hardly ever find anything other than having 'the wrong opinion'. That 'wrong opinion' being anything other than PC. But it seems 'that' mentality has moved to 'another' forum now ...
This thread is a perfect example of why those people should never have been banned. For the first time in a long time, through lengthy discussion, some of us have been able to differentiate our opinions from extremists (on both sides). Oh, they exist, we all know that, but at last we can begin the process of building bridges again between the majority, who are rational, thoughtful and intelligent people. THAT is how a good forum works. We may not agree but we CAN agree that labelling only kills conversation (and reputations). We've all heard the saying 'attack the point, not the person'. Let's continue to embrace that.
So ... Yep, GAF is a much better forum now and all power to anyone with an opinion, regardless of what it is.
What's your issue, here? These are genuine issues and since you mentioned that you're a male feminist I think you should respect these criticisms and try and be as rational as possible.
It's just a fact that there are more liberal developers than conservative gamers in the video game industry, if not then it's debatable and they just have louder voices and have more influence because of that.
It´s funny how some people preach about the values and importance of a creators vision, that it should be maintained and not subjected to any form of censorship, that they should be free to create whatever they want without scrutiny, but when a creator has a vision about a lesbian couple, diversity, feminist themes or what not that don´t gel with these very same people they often seem to stand up and scream "AGENDA!" as loud as they can. How is that?
What happens when you have people who care about agenda more than they care about <insert here>, influence <insert here> with their agenda?Yeah but they're arguing that it's "troubling" or that it's "ruining" things.
I would like to know how anyone can take this guy seriously, and how the hell he has a job writing about video games.
ND didn't get where it is, doing what it is doing at the moment, as you rightfully noted.Whether or not more gamers are conservative, the fact that Naughty Dog is doing so well as a company suggests that the majority of gamers (conservative or not) like their games.
Hell yes. The only issue I see with the concept is that since the target audience, he's trying to target, is represented by:But the main theme I've stuck to is that Neil Druckmann should be allowed to make whatever game he wants to make and that the video game industry is better off when story tellers are able to experiment and put out stuff they care about (regardless of if people like it - just like other forms of art).
That's exactly what they are supposed to do, except they don't.Here's an idea, get involved in the arts and science and make art that appeals to your sensibilities.
What is also nice is to see that we actually can civil discussions about such things - something that OldGAF always made you feel is not.Couldn't agree more. It's nice to see the forum is open to dissenting opinions and discussions now.
Here's an idea, get involved in the arts and science and make art that appeals to your sensibilities. The people that make these games owe you nothing.
Growing up in the 80s, the primary video game playing segment were loner nerds. We were made fun of etc at that point for being typical nerdy kids. Gaming didn't really start to gain steam until the 90s with the SNES and Genesis console wars. It became more of a boys club and more popularly accepted form of entertainment. We are now entering the era where videogaming is the single biggest form of entertainment bar none.But why do "things" to an established franchise?
I don't think so, but it doesn't matter in this context.Growing up in the 80s, the primary video game playing segment were loner nerds.
So you have a game that "boys" like.Companies would be foolish if they didn't attempt to bring new demographics to their games by serving underserved markets. E
It never was.The simple fact of the matter is gaming is no longer a boys club
So you have a game that "boys" like.
And you want to bring in more "girls".
And to achieve that, you absolutely have to change "boys" game, instead of creating "girls' game? What about boys not liking it and leaving (Star Wars)?
And for the record, I have kids of both genders, both play games (whichever they like, but, of course, within age restriction limits) guess who plays what.
Two points:
Regarding Sethbacca , In sales, for example, a car salesman wants to sell one man ten cars over a number of years instead of ten cars to ten different people. Retaining customers is vital to all business. Yes, expand your potential customers, but keep the customers you already have.
The waypoint dudes aren't dumb but they're so ideologically possessed that they may as well be. Here is Patrick Klepek criticizing RAGE 2's marketing for using the word "insane."
If you're so far down the SJW rabbit hole of policing language that the word "insane" is too offensive for you, then yeah, I can't take you seriously. You're just too far gone.
Here's further insanity. A screen grab of a (since deleted) exchange in the thread for this tweet wherein Patrick laments "goofing up" and occasionally saying the word "crazy." It's literally beyond parody at this point.
(archive link for the screengrab)
I feel like this argument is flawed. The market for cars is not expanding generally. Its at saturation. The only way car makers expand market share at this point is by taking it from another manufacturer. Gaming is still a growing form of entertainment and there's a gold rush of consumers still to be sold to. As much as you want to satisfy existing customers you're trying to pull in part of the massively underserved market that isn't partaking.
All I'm saying is that there's a big difference between a saturated market where people are simply replacing old and broken, and an expanding market where people are buying in and expanding your market base. Your salesman analogy is good outside the car comparison except that instead of selling to 10 and wanting to keep 10 customers, they're taking a gamble that they can gain 4 customers for every 2 they're willing to lose. Businesses that only sell to people they've always sold to may stay alive but they're certainly not going to grow at the same rate as those actively looking to expand their market.So, it's flawed when I write it, but not when you rephrase what I wrote?
You might have been a loner nerd, but myself and all the other cool kids were happily playing games and proud. It was never looked down upon in my 80s/90s youth. Parents and older people might have looked down on it, but that’s par for the course for every generation.Growing up in the 80s, the primary video game playing segment were loner nerds. We were made fun of etc at that point for being typical nerdy kids. Gaming didn't really start to gain steam until the 90s with the SNES and Genesis console wars. It became more of a boys club and more popularly accepted form of entertainment.
It was TARGETED at all genders (as it was quite expensive), PCs were targeted at entire families.These advertisements never reflected the reality of the situation. They represented what the manufacturer wanted to happen. How many girls do you know that played video games in the 80s or 90s? How many adults or senior citizens. Growing up with video games, anecdotally at least, it was always a boys club.
Oh, I wasn't talking about rights, merely about feasibility of turning Sims into GTA to "attract more boys" and "for inclusivity", sounds like a crazy idea, but doing reverse, for some reason, does not.As to the idea that you're changing a boy's IP to reflect inclusiveness I would argue that the idea that people who feel like they own things they're a fan of are misguided. The creation belongs to the creator, you're only ever a fan.
It's funny because this statement could apply to either side. A lot of your arguments can be interpreted that way. Pretty interesting.toxic fandoms and entitled people who only want you to make what they're willing to consume aren't worth catering to. They just consume resources and complain because nothing will ever meet their standards anyway.
The only time it was ever a "boys club" was during the late 80s and the 90s and I'd argue that was moreso due to perception (advertising) than reality. Ms. Pac-Man wasn't made to appeal to boys, after all. Arcades and home consoles were just as much for girls and girls regularly played them. Game Boy was a very popular girl's system. Gaming was first popularized in bars, bowling alleys, clubs, and other such placesThe PC market was definitely a boy's club, though, until you began seeing stuff like The Sims, Roller Coaster Tycoon, and so forth showing up at the turn of the millenium.Growing up in the 80s, the primary video game playing segment were loner nerds. We were made fun of etc at that point for being typical nerdy kids. Gaming didn't really start to gain steam until the 90s with the SNES and Genesis console wars. It became more of a boys club and more popularly accepted form of entertainment. We are now entering the era where videogaming is the single biggest form of entertainment bar none.
Companies would be foolish if they didn't attempt to bring new demographics to their games by serving underserved markets. Especially when AAA titles cost as much to make as they do now. It's a numbers game and the key is to appeal to as many people as possible.
The simple fact of the matter is gaming is no longer a boys club, it's mainstream and the games will ultimately reflect the culture. It's simple capitalism.
I'm curious if these are the sort of games most women enjoy playing anyway. I'd enjoy seeing proof that AAA third-person shooter with a female lead will sell markedly better to women. What if women don't enjoy that genre of game? Seems like devs would rather make the same games they were gonna make anyway but are cramming a female into the game because it'll sell better (??). How shallow is that?
If the goal is to appeal to women, then we should first do the stuff that works and then worry about representation. You know what works? Good gameplay. Girl gamers and boy gamers are identical in this respect: they want the game to be enjoyable. I cannot comprehend how the industry can simultaneously claim
"Barbie games and pretty princess games aren't the sort of games that girls want even though they continue to buy them..."
and then say
"...so let's cram women into genres that women have not historically been attracted to 'cause that's what they want".