Having similarities doesn't mean they look the same.

I played both Crusader games and he didn't express any left or right wing position, let alone comment on America's Army. <confused>

Plots and conflict are elements in stories, not in games -- but despite my nitpicking, you're absolutely correct: Games need to feature something for the player to do - breeding fish in Fish Frenzy, building a epic penis tower in Minecraft - and the reason most games are based on violent conflict is because it is easy to construct gameplay based on this, and because violent conflict is rather exiting. But the gameplay mechanic influences the stories of the games, so that they too become black and white tales.

I didn't intend to suggest that games sets off an space alien mind beam which reprogram the gamers brain. The game Endorfun has that feature, but ... anyways, as you mention yourself, everybody gets influenced by whatever they decide to put into the brain, myself included. That's just what I'm talking about.

I don't just use these words as synonyms for 'good' or 'evil'. If you're unsure what I mean when I talk about progressive and reactionary, try this TED talk where some psychologist uses the word liberals and conservatives to describe the same stuff:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind

Sorry to disappoint - I will be on look-out for something higher on the crazy scale!

Thanks!

The way I see it:
PROPAGANDA: The government or another power tries to influence public opinion
ADVERTISEMENT: A company tries to persue the public to buy their products

In modern time, the word propaganda has ended up being used to describe something extremely sinister. The problem is that we have no other word describing the same thing. I think it is important to debate how those with a certain influence wants to change the mind of the population. So it is sad that the word propaganda has turned into something that can't really be used anymore.

Of course my post has a propagandistic purpose too - I also try to "influence public opinion". Albeit on a rather small scale.

Doesn't change the fact that Anita and her whinging trust fund cronies are the most disingenuous, annoying mother fuckers the game industry has ever seen. No one took that Murica game seriously and the whole idea tanked. Whereas Anita is constantly being propped up by bloggers( won't call them journalists) despite being so blatantly full of shit. Her pet boyfriend is annoying too.

Thats what GamersGate looks like to me. And to a lot of other people. Tjek the first reply to my post, and then notice that it was my post, not his reply, that got downvoted 8 points. Also notice how, thoughout the thread, the GG goes:
"I dislike this woman"
"I dislike her a LOT!"
"I dislike her a whole lot!"
"By Golly, do I ever dislike her!"
...
Which seem more like in line with 'women-hating conservatives' than with the progressive forces.

Another one who thinks it's impossible to dislike this person unrelated to her gender, because she is always only trying to prove her point no matter what (lies included) and never intended to do an objective analysis whatsoever. For me she is a Goebbels and nothing more.
You are a complete sexist and it shines through every single one of your propaganda posts.

Tssss.... Give me a break.

So now criticizing or despising that fanatical misandrist lunatic is "in line with woman-hating conservatives" ? Sarkeesian has been crowned universal embodiment of woman recently, or did I miss something ?

Funny thing : focusing on what she has between her legs and totally ignoring her ideas may be interpreted as sexism. And that's what you're doing here.

So it means that all those so called progressive who called Christina Sommers all sort of not-so-friendly names are in reality 'women-hating conservatives' right ?

Disliking one woman, disagreeing with her or even outright "hating" her doesn't necessarily mean hating "all" women you know.

That's the ONE point where you're actually right. Gamergate ARE women-hating conservatives. Now let's check all the boxes where you're wrong.

1. Gender stuff.

1.1 Unspecified gender is when, holy shit who'd have guessed, the gender of the protagonist is not specified. It has never been a bold move, it was an advantage which some games could implement to elide gender differences between the player and the PC. (The only gender fuck-up I can imagine is when the game starts assuming the PC's / player's possession of a dick for granted.) If your PC doesn't need a marketable personality for whatever reason (and gender is super important in marketing), that's a thing which can be done. Is it progressive? Sure, but don't rush to grant Zoe credit for originality, because another obscure indie text adventure did it first and was released a little bit earlier than Zoe's game.
And when the gender is unspecified, you can't have cross-anything.

1.2 Choosable gender allows for character customization. It has way more potential for sexist fuck-ups on both sides of the release date when the devs set out to have gender impact gameplay or the player community goes out of their way to produce sexist content. If done properly, it sends a clear message that mammaries are not detrimental to an adventuring career AND can feature marketable characters -- everyone wins.

1.3 Fixed gender is when you can't pick a gender independently -- important options (classes, weapons, quests, the game itself) come prepackaged with it. And while having a larger fuckup potential than any of the preceding options, it's also not necessarily worse. Forcing people (yes, women can be immensely sexist toward other women) to realize women can be people, too, through making them to play female characters is good. But not new -- the first game that did it is already old enough to be Prime Minister of Japan.

1.4. None of the above have anything to do with crossdressing, which is putting on clothes strongly associated with another (woop woop pc police! --me) gender. I suppose you can use "crossdressing" as a metaphor for the games where the player's choice of PC appearance is nothing more than a skin (such as multiplayer Quake)... but then you praise Depression Quest for its emphasis on the character's feeeeeeeelings. Make up your damn mind. Actually, speaking about that...


2. Feeeeeeelings and the interface.

Games -- all games, unless they're shitty -- are supposed to evoke emotions. Protagonist fuzziness has fuck all to do with it. The first game which scared me figuratively shitless was Sorcerer. I couldn't sleep at night. The second was, I think, Eye of the Beholder II. I wrote "adventurer's journals" for many RPGs I played. I was pissed off by the annoying dipshit kid in Myst so much I quit playing. I don't mean she's badly written -- I hate her personality and I don't want to play a character who's helping her. If that's not emotion, I don't know what is. Here are some ways emotions are addressed in the gameplay:

- No barrier whatsoever, direct first-person input all the way so much it could be real VR. You do things, things do you.
- You select your character's emotional reactions as an additional option.
- The game tells you how your character feels.
- The game shows you what your character does, and you have to extrapolate on the basis of it.
- Crazy geometry, fractal blooms, fluffy wings, and Love that makes you one with the cosmos.
Not a single one of these options is necessarily superior.


3. Propaganda.

It's telling that you pick a long-forotten army recruiting tool -- you have no idea what propaganda is. Propaganda (being a disparaging word) is art used to promote an agenda which you don't like. Instead of recommending eye-opening commercial self-help books, read and [url=http://www.cracked.com/article_16656_6-brainwashing-techniques-theyre-using-you-right-now.html]this. There, you're set. Now open a news site or watch a movie and do some field work.

Humans learn by example. Babies learn by example. Babies who can't yet talk are natural Bayesian Humanists. Your decision-making process is grounded in the sum of your experiences. And some of those experiences are NOT YOURS -- they're someone else's, or completely made up. Mass media coupled with information cascades offers unprecedented opportunities for influencing "individual" decision-making. In art,
- praise of the army leads to more army recruitment
- Jaws made sharks nearly extinct
- Indiana Jones made kids go into archaeology
- CSI made kids go into forensics
etc.
Some "propaganda" is post-hoc, without any intent on part of the creators:
- terrorists are allegedly playing mods of US vidya
- Lord of the Rings is a neo-Nazi recruitment tool
- Lolita is a favorite of pedos
- Fahrenheit 451 is supposedly anti-censorship (Bradbury always insisted it's anti-tv)
Hell, I know a guy who insisted the imported Soviet darlings Sengoku Jieitai and The Eternity Brigade were pro-war.

TL;DR you don't know anything on either topic in your thread title. You're basically the axially symmetrical Christina Hoff Sommers, where the axis of symmetry is gaming knowledge. She's a chick, you're (apparently) a dude. She's a sexist turd, you're (apparently) not. She's successful, you fail. She knows dick about games, you know dick about games. Please educate yourself and stop hurting the cause.

After this and so many other threads around here dissecting the needs/want/importance/subject matter of games, I have come to the conclusion that many of you are allergic to the concept or experience of FUN. That's kinda sad. Hope you guys work on that.

That's worse than textbook examples of inductive reasoning gone awry...
As others have already mentioned: you see someone expressing strong dislike for one particular woman, for reasons explicitly separate from her being a woman, and conclude that you're dealing with a conservative? Think about this for a moment.
For this reasoning to work, you need to go kinda like this:
1* He doesn't like a particular woman.
2* He must dislike her because she is a woman.
3* He must dislike all women (NOTE: 3 does not trivially follow from 2)
4* There are two kinds of people: progressives (us) and conservatives (them)
5* Progressives don't hate women
6* Therefore, the person I'm dealing with has to be a conservative
That's not just slightly illogical.

No, they're not. Funnily enough, even though your post is quite long-winded, this is the one statement you choose to provide no context, explanation nor evidence for. No points for guessing why.
I have yet to come to terms with the fact that you insist on doing this, Starmaker. You seem smart, but blind devotion appears to be clouding your judgement. Nowadays you lash out against everyone and everything. If your tone isn't outright hostile, it is unbearably condescending (and my tolerance for condescending tone is quite high). To your credit, but simultaneously to your disadvantage, you speak out against what you find wrong... in things said by the only guy in this thread who could conceivably agree with your "side". As far as I can tell - you're alienating everyone. PLEASE STOP.
I'm not asking you to change your mind; I'm asking you to change you approach. I'm open-minded and willing to listen, but even I find your prose grating and overly bitter.

I like to add real quick that it is possible to be conservative without hating women. Conservatism deals with upholding traditional cultural values in the non-political sense of the term and the concept that any changes should come from within based upon natural evolution and enhancement to basic core values. There are conservative women and they are anything but self-hating.

The so called "progressives" however have said and done awful things to any woman who does not follow the typical so-called "progressive" agenda from accusing them of being whores to accusing them of being "bare-foot and pregnant." Hell, I prefer to replace the term progressive with cultural Marxist.

Yeah, I have now realized that the word propaganda can no longer be used to describe general attemp to influence public opinion. Today, use of the words suggest that forces behind the propaganda are some kind of nazi demons. Its a bit sad that we have lost a word that is rather important.

Thanks for the links, good reads - have you checked the same authors 'John Dies at the End'? The movie version was good too.

Okay, let's play - this is the grand

***************************************************
COLOSAL CAVE versus DEPRESSION QUEST
Unspecified-gender-protagonist match
***************************************************

I have played text-adventures before. I have also played Abuse and countless other games which uses the unspecified-gender trope. So ask yourself this: Why did I notice it here, when this trope is something that I normally don't even register? Yes, okay - It could be because I'm a clueless fart ... but anyway -

Okay .. eh .. let's see - what I want to point out is, like, the unspecified-gender-protagonist is often naturally assumed to be a man. For instance, as you mentioned, when the game refers to the protagonists pecker. When the unspecified-gender-protagonist turns out to be a girl in Metroid, it is a "jaw-dropping moment". The gender can hardly be said to all that unspecified when the players all naturally assume that they are playing a dude.
And Golly, look at what I found:
http://www.amctv.com/shows/halt-and-catch-fire/colossal-cave-adventure/landing
static.giantbomb.com/uploads/scale_large/0/5028/1329824-colossal_cave.jpg

But in Depression Quest, the gender of the protagonist is truly unspecified. Check out the 2nd line in the game:

"You are a mid-twenties human being."

Rather crappy writing, right? Reading it feels like getting your face repeatedly dick-slapped. But it serves a purpose. It build a contract which says that the gender of the protagonists is unquestionable unspecified. If the game later mentioned the protagonists pecker, this would break the contract. So would it if the player later unconsciously assumed that he was playing a dude.

So while most unspecified-gender games has an easygoing approach where both designer and players often assume that the protagonist is a man, since this is like the 'default' gender, Depression Quest is a bit more serious about the unspecified gender thing.

The area where Depression Quest really sticks out from Colosal Cave and any other unspecified-gender game is in its focus:

- In COLOSAL CAVE, the protagonists explores caves, something outside h**self.
- In DEPRESSION QUEST, the protagonists explores h**self.

You will notice that your average 'unspecified-gender-protagonist' game follow the same pattern as Colosal Cave: the focus is on the environment surrounding the protagonist, not the protagnoist h**self.

Compare this to Depression Quest, where we are told that the protagonist has a girlfriend name Alex. So we are playing either:
A) A heterosexual dude
B) A lesbian woman
... Or rather, we are playing neither and both of these, since the contract says that the gender shall not be specified.

There is also a difference in purpose. In Colosal Cave, the protagonist merely exists to allow the player to interact with the world via a 2nd person narrative. It's a bit akin to heroes like Tintin, who have a rather bland personality so the adventure itself can be in focus.
But in Depression Quest, the unspecified gender don't fit naturally with the story. Rather, it is something that has been forced into a story where we wouldn't normally expect it, in order to deliver some feminist message. Yeah, I get it - I'm playing a lesbian and/or a heterosexual dude and suffering from depression is the same problem regardless.

This explanation ended up being a bit long-winded. I just thought it was a fun gimmick the game pulled off, and found it worth mentioning, even if it didn't have all that much to do with the topic of militant cross-dressing.

KasperHviid, Not having a chance to to try out "COLOSAL CAVE" I can't comment on it. But I did try Depession Quest before I knew anything about about who made it & seriously I remember being far more enjoyment reading my brother's "choose you own adventure" books when I was a kid though that could be the "nostalgia" effect happening. It's not that I am against it existing. I just don't see it deserving of the high praise it received.

And if me not liking Anita for her "critiquing" is misogyny then wouldn't me not liking Jack Thompson for what he did "internalised misandry" by Feminist "logic" So since I now "Hate" both sides does that mean I'm no longer sexist?

I agree with this vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMWEg-DdUDg