A) Where did you get that everybody is people? As I read SJW-s arguments, there is privileged straight white male scum and victims of their racism and sexism. Or if you go to the other side, there are sick degenerates, faggots, parasites and terrorists. No people what's so ever. And that's just today, in past it was worse.

B) It started with nationalistic expansion of one or the other civilization. It's irrelevant which side started it. There are interpretation that humans in the movie knew about the meteor attack on Earth, but choose not to stop it.

C) Well, there is "feminist tradition" to which they can refer to.

D) Sigh, to point out if there is contradiction within UKIP dialogue would require better knowledge of their political context, but let's look to the Right in general. When SJW-s want to shut down somebody for being racist, it's censoring; but when your average youtube commentator wants to revoke Disney's artistic freedom in making new Star Wars films because they contain SJW propaganda, that's okay? Are you serious?

No. I'm just tired of people, who make a statement like "Every time you make a new game that leads with strong white man and sexy woman you're strengthening the already-strongest image." and think that such statement proves something. While it is this statement that needs proof.

No, it's not easy. Exactly because people don't need a new Superman, you can't make another Superman and expect a game about this "new Superman" to be successful. So developer needs to make a game about something (or someone) that people had never seen before. Maybe this new "superman" has new powers, or new enemies, or new set of values. Maybe it well be not a Superman, but Superwoman. That's exactly how Supergirl and Lara Croft were created - they had familiar set of abilities (Superman, Indiana Jones), but developers changed their sex.

However, instead of changing sex, they could make any other number of changes. Various origins, different moral code (Superman was pure hero, so new comics featured antiheroes and even villains as protagonists), and many other creative choices. All in hope that people will show interest in their work.

BS. First Person Shooters were not successful initially, but developers pushed the boundaries of technology and software, until they became succssful. No one made RPGs with deep story until Fallout and Baldurs Gate. Even "Superman" idea wasn't really successful until the comics creators made a few adjustment for it to become popular.

And that's exactly the problem with your logic. Not only you demand for game develpers to take risks in the name of your views. You also admit that it is hard even imagine how to make things you demand work.

And that part just doesn't make sense at all. What's the point in the "movement to prefer" if you already prefer? To make others prefer? In other words to impose your views on others?!

And for whom is the change is supposed to be easiest? For you who jsut sit on the couch and demand or for developer who has to figure out how to satisfy your demands, despite the fact that you yourself admit it's hard for you to imagine what you want?!

A) NO! The past was better. I know for sure that in the 90-s and early 00-s people didn't care about race and sex. Sexualty also wasn't a big deal. And gender system simply didn't exist.

B) This still proves my point - relations between humans and bugs were completely antagonistic at the start (no side was even thinking as other as intelligent lifeform), and then changed into more understanding kind.

C) So? On more similarity between modern feminism and Ur-Fascism then?

D) Whoa-whoa! I specifically asked about UKIP! Which is btw not even Right - it's liberal centrist. But if you clamp up all the veiwpoints on the "right" of cours you will get a bunch of contradictions. Exactly because there are different people on the right with different views. Some of them alt-right, who are indeed close to fascism.

D.1) Disney's Star Wars trilogy sucks. But not because in contains SJW propaganda, but because it is just a mindless rip-off of the Original Trilogy. And The Last Jedi is downright stupid, inconsistent and contradicts canon (also logic and physics). You can excersice your "artistic freedom" all you want, but if you create a piece of crap, don't lash at people for telling you that you created a piece of crap.

Btw, there was actually the same story with Mass Effect 3 a few years ago, when people complained about it's ending. But instead of admitting it one of the EA representatives said that backlash was not because of ending and the story contadiction, but because of gay romance and people who complained were actually homophobes. Some time after, devs actually admitted the problem and made "extended" version of the ending, but that's entirely another story.

Like the karma system....

In Fallout 2, one of the four mafia clans are "good guys". They swear like the other 3, they are violent as the other 3, they go off easily if you angry them, they produce drugs like other 3, they try to murder you if you disagree to become their "Made Man".

But killing any of them gives you -5 karma, where killing any member of other 3 gives you +5 karma. And there are a lot children on their base - which become aggroed to you if fight starts off and can easily grant you Childkiller.*

In Fallout NV I directly deactivated the karma with the mod for good and saved myself many reloads.

* unless you punch children which causes them to always run off sparing the said perk... punching children is not awarded with the negative karma.

So well that I'll quote it in full and downvotes be damned.

A) As I remember, it wasn't until 00's that gay marriages where allowed in the West. 90's where age of bloody war in the ex-Yugoslavia. Before that, Russians and Yankees were engaged in cock measuring contest for half a century about who will be the world 's leading superpower. And that's without all the wars in the Third World. HOW it was better then?

B) It never changed in more understanding one.

C) If you want to prove that, you could quote Žižek, an actual fucking Marxist.

D) Wikipedia says Right wing; you say liberal. So we agree - Right wing party.

D.1) All my friends agree on one things - the Last Jedi was really good, and it's an opinion I found among many more intelligent reviewers (none which is professional movie reviewers, but that would be 2 of my friends). Do I agree? Don't know, because after watching That Fucking Abomination I said I won't be watching another Disney SW movie. But if intelligent people found the movie good, and most of negative comments I see are: "SJW propaganda" and "spits in the face of SW fans" I will have to agree with the movie being good, despite that I never intend to watch it.

A) We were free to talk about all the things you mentioned without of fear being accused of hate speech. No matter what our views were.

B) In the end of Troopers they leterally had an ad how they now learn how bug commander thinks.

C) I think my qotes of Eco were enough.

D) Wikipedia is edited by far leftists. For them anyone who isn't far left is right. UKIP is pro-free speech, regardless. So quit strawmanning.

D.1) Most positive comments about TLJ, I saw are "Now Rey will show that patriarchy! Force is female!". And so far I haven't seen intelligent answer about why Snoke's fleet was persuing rebels half the movie instead of just make a hyperspace jump in front of them. There are of course many other valid questions - right on this forum there were pages of them in the topic about the film. Are you telling me that you haven't seen them?

Final Fantasy 4 says hi. Perhaps Final Fantasy 2 says high as well.

(Keep in mind that JRPGs are RPGs too!)

Shin Megami Tensei says hi.

Okay, GOG can't post my long response because of my poor fucking internet so I am removing myself from discussion, I have work to do as well.

You may be on to something...

Also words. I remember someone taking issue with a word I used (claiming it was misleading, or over-used, I don't remember). Why don't they, like, get rid of all the words, or sumthin ?

That would be like throwing out the bathwater with the baby. Or sumthin. o.O

But I hadn't said that yet... And I think trying to express that you're tired of someone has a lot of crossover with dismissing them.

I'd defend that statement - the most common image is the strongest image; made strong by its familiarity. By strong I mean bold, memorable. Strong in terms of imagery. So by creating more works that feature the most common imagery, you make it more common, which strengthens it.


Sorry, I didn't mean prefer as in like, but prefer as in choose or place value onto. So a conscious effort to push for representation of the less-represented, over representation of the frequently-represented.

I'd like for it to be easy for any creative person to create works that break the mould. I'm afraid I've never made demands of any games developer, from my couch or elsewhere. I think you're assuming things about who I am. Let's not get into that.


I think any creator of a work has a responsibility to their audience: If by making a conscious effort to change the most common imagery can make the most vulnerable people in our society more secure, we should all be trying to do that.

Again, I'm not saying there should be no Duke Nukems and Cinderellas, but that we should be trying to make their mould as commonplace as the mould of the most underrepresented.


Again, the argument isn't to get rid of a trope, but to encourage new tropes to be just as powerful as the ones we have already.