It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
low rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: Sooo... they did some digging and found a bunch of dirt, that's sad but no big surprise, I still think that the fact that the REASON people finally started digging was in defense of MRAs, other casual misogynists and overgrown children who were spitting their dummies out because they were asked to play nice and share their toys with some girls is... creepy and a little disgusting though!
avatar
Neobr10: Another case: people got "offended" by the lack of same-sex relationships in Nintendo's life-sim Tomodachi Life. I'm a huge defender of LGBT rights, but that's just too much. If Nintendo wants to make a game without same-sex relationships they should be allowed to do so. It's their game, it's their vision. At the same time, i really liked how EA basically showed the middle finger to conservative christian groups when they allowed same-sex relationships in some of their games and didn't retreat to please them. It's all about freedom.
The thing with Tomodachi life is that the entire game is based around taking your WiiMiis, the characters that Nintendo had you create as avatars for yourself and your friends and act out real world situations - like injecting yourselves into a 'The Sims' clone, in that context I can see why not being able to have your WiiMii hook up with your real life partner's WiiMii put some people's nose out of joint - I think it was a bit of a special case for that reason

I can sympathies with Nintendo though - a family orientated company, who's customer base has a fair percentage of parents who are conservative about what kind of content they put in games they put in front of their children, which is why they chose Nintendo over Sony or MS in the first place. So I can see why Nintendo chose to be 'on the right' in their decisions and yes they WERE in a damned if they do, damned if they don't position but that's just part of the 'fundies vs. libs' discussion that's going on in society as a whole right now - completely opposite definitions of what is moral and what is amoral, its an issue!
avatar
Fever_Discordia: I still think that the fact that the REASON people finally started digging was in defense of MRAs, other casual misogynists and overgrown children who were spitting their dummies out because they were asked to play nice and share their toys with some girls is... creepy and a little disgusting though!
avatar
HiPhish: That's BS and you know it. Wasn't it the games media themselves who were foaming at their mouths in rage during last generation for Nintendo daring to make games that appealed to women, children and older people? The same people who looove shit like Dear Esther and Gone Home for daring to challenge our perception of what a game is?

No one has any problems sharing their toys, we have a problem with being called shit and and worse than the HJ (Hitler Youth) and ISIS. We are calling BS on the people who mocked Jack Thompson but lick Anita's ass who uses the same exact rhetoric. We are sick of the lies that are being propagated. We are sick of being treated like idiots. And we are sick of people like you who eat up the lies and fuel their fire.
Wait, wait, timelines, cause and effect
What you're talking about is the media handling the situation incredibly badly and biting the hand that feeds it, *I* don't like that there was a situation or handle well or badly in the first place...
Post edited September 08, 2014 by Fever_Discordia
low rated
avatar
jefequeso: Quick check of the front page didn't show anything like this, so if this is a repeat of an existing thread, I'm sorry and I accept the scorn that will be thrown my way :)

We've already got two threads for discussing this whole gamergate situation: (http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_zoe_quinn_scandal_highlights_how_gaming_journalism_is_corrupt_and_has_turned_to/page1) and (http://www.gog.com/forum/general/some_pressfeminism_drama), but given how much this thing is exploding, I think we need a thread where we can just keep updated on all the things that are happening.

In other words, post links to gamergate-related NEWS here. Post links to articles/discuss things/whatever in one or both of the above threads.

To start with, in case you haven't heard, this is the hot topic of the day: http://www.lordkat.com/igf-and-indiecade-racketeering.html
Um... wouldn't it be better if you simply kept updating the OP with the relevant news?
low rated
avatar
Neobr10: Back in the day having a game about a plumber who has to rescue a princess was fine, but nowadays it's a fucking crime because it uses the "damsel in distress trope" and whatever. All the Mario and Zelda games are "evil" because they "objectify" women since you have to rescue the princess. Oh mean, c'mon, give me a fucking break, it's just a fucking game, it could have been about rescuing the protragonist's dog, it doesn't matter. Having to rescue someone is just a plot device to get the game going. It's not an evil conspiracy to "objectify" women. What's next? You can't have a game about rescuing dogs because it objectifies animals? Where will the SJW stop?
Seeing that a woman could have been replaced by a dog shows that in such games she doesn't really have a value of her own. And if this whole discussion made you think about that, I think it's a nice step forward. Even if it apparently makes you angry.
Nobody, not even Anita S., has been demanding that these tropes shouldn't been used anymore, they are time-honed plot-devices after all, it has just been said that we should be more aware of what's going on there. Thinking about these things offers new ways of how to do things. That doesn't mean that these plot-devices will disappear (and nobody has even asked for that) but they are used with the knowledge in mind of what they are.

avatar
Neobr10: Remember the controversy around the lack of playable female characters in AC Unity? That was fucking BS. Since when do game developers need to make thousands of playable characters just to please different groups?
Players wanting additional features, be it characters, modes etc. is not so rare. And devs like to please the players so that more will buy their games.

avatar
Neobr10: What's next? Ubisoft is racist for not having a playable muslim character in the next Assassin's Creed?
*sigh* Muslim is not a race.

avatar
Neobr10: Oh, please. Every game from now on will need male characters, white characters, black characters, female characters, japanese characters, korean characters, chinese characters, african characters, south american characters, jewish characters, muslim characters, christian characters, homossexual characters, bissexual characters and every other kind of group.
*shrugs* And why not offer different physical attributes during character creation? Also having the option to assign a religion doesn't seem a bad thing to me (and I'm an atheist). Although I'm sure that there are already games out there that have that option that I have never heard of.

avatar
Neobr10: If Ubisoft doesn't want to make a game with playable female characters it is their right to do so. Period. The gaming press really need to stop making such a shitstorm over something so fucking frivolous as a game design decision.
And it's the players' right to complain. People complain about features, that's completely normal. Be it the lack of an option to play the game offline, the use of save points, the strengths/weaknesses or a certain class, etc. And why shouldn't they complain?

avatar
Neobr10: For me all this feminist BS being pushed against developers by these pseudo-journalists smells a lot like censorship. They are trying to take away the freedom from developers and publishers and trying to dictate how they should make games. This is fucking disgusting.
As long as certain kind of games sell well, they will be produced, no matter the shitstorm. No need to be afraid that somebody will take away your toys.
Porn for example survived worse things. Because it sells.
Vote with your wallet.

avatar
Neobr10: Not too long ago RPS made a bunch of articles about how Blizzard was "misogynist". First they counted how many times Kerrigan's ass appeared in cutscenes, then they made a shitstorm over Blizzard's female characters design in Heroes of the Storm. Why? Blizzard can't even design its own characters anymore?
They can. And people react to the characters and how they are presented. Some drool, some complain, others don't care.

avatar
Neobr10: Another case: people got "offended" by the lack of same-sex relationships in Nintendo's life-sim Tomodachi Life. I'm a huge defender of LGBT rights, but that's just too much. If Nintendo wants to make a game without same-sex relationships they should be allowed to do so.
They are allowed to do so, nobody stopped them. If they want to sell their game to people who think that game is only worth playing with LGBT people in it, they might want to add that though.

avatar
Neobr10: It's their game, it's their vision.
Yep, and they decide whether they want to change something about it or not.

avatar
Neobr10: At the same time, i really liked how EA basically showed the middle finger to conservative christian groups when they allowed same-sex relationships in some of their games and didn't retreat to please them. It's all about freedom.
Just like Nintendo they decided whether they wanted to change something about the game due to criticism or not.

avatar
Neobr10: I'm not saying that misogyny and sexism doesn't exist in our society. It does. And that's the main issue i have with these "feminists" like Quinn, Anita and their supporters. They're creating a problem where it doesn't exist. All they want to achieve with these actions is fame and money, and so far they are succeeding. Anita is now famous and got a bunch of money from the idiots that supported her on Kickstarter by playing the victim card and calling the "white knights" to rescue her. Ironically she acts exactly like the "damsel in distress" she complains so much about. Quinn achieved fame and got a lot of exposure for her shitty game by both playing the victim card and by using her genitals.
I think we can be pretty sure that Anita as well as Zoe would have preferred to not be victims. Having your personal life discussed in the internet, receiving threats of all kinds is not really fun.

avatar
Neobr10: What we shouldn't accept are the cases of REAL sexism and misogyny. For example, millions of women are sexually harassed every year, women receive lower salaries than men by doing the same functions. There was a very controversial research here in Brazil that showed that a significant portion of the population think that women get raped because of how they are dressed, basically transferring guilt to the victims. That's real misogyny right there. We should fight against that, not against a fucking plumber that has to rescue a princess in a game.
You'll always find a bigger problem in the world or somebody who's worse of. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to complain about minor things (had a bad day once?).

avatar
Neobr10: And saying that games "objectify" women and make gamers misogynists is like saying that violent games make people violent. To be very honest, these feminists and her loyal journalists are not very different from Jack Thompson.
*sigh* But games do objectify women. Not always, but in some instances they do.
The question is what we do about it. And not doing anything about it can also be a viable option. Like I said before, vote with your wallet.
If you think that in a certain game women are portrayed or treated in a way that is completely not acceptable for you, don't buy the game.
And if a game appeals to you, buy it.
It's as simple as that.

There is no need for all this screaming around "They want to censor devs, they want to take our toys away, they are all meanies pretending to be victims. WAAAH!" And there is certainly no need for all these threats against people going around.
Stay calm, stay cool, use your power as a gamer - and that power resides in your wallet.
Have fun and play something.


Edit: Spelling.
Post edited September 08, 2014 by Piranjade
avatar
Fever_Discordia: Wait, wait, timelines, cause and effect
What you're talking about is the media handling the situation incredibly badly and biting the hand that feeds it, *I* don't like that there was a situation or handle well or badly in the first place...
This hasn't started with the Quinnspiracy, it has been going on for years. The Quinnspiracy was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

avatar
Piranjade: *sigh* But games do objectify women.
Games objectify everything. Everything is just an object or a background. You are acting as if that's a bad thing. Games are not life lessons, they are just silly entertainment. No one is going to play a game and then be like "hmm, so that's how life works". That's the whole fallacy everything hangs on.
Post edited September 08, 2014 by HiPhish
avatar
HiPhish: \Games objectify everything. Everything is just an object or a background. You are acting as if that's a bad thing. Games are not life lessons, they are just silly entertainment. No one is going to play a game and then be like "hmm, so that's how life works". That's the whole fallacy everything hangs on.
AMEN BROTHER!
low rated
Well, that's what they WANT gaming to be - some kind of highfaluting art-form that is all about political and cultural criticism. In the eyes of these people, gaming (along with everything else, really) is nothing but a political tool to be taken over and used to propagate their worldview.

So yeah, the idea that games are just.. well games, an interactive medium simply about fun, stands directly in-front of their goal. So it's no surprise to see them trying to demonize and humiliate "white guys" as immature, sexist, "neckbeards" or whatever any chance they get.

They don't care about games at all, political ideology of feminism is number 1.
Post edited September 08, 2014 by Crosmando
low rated
avatar
Crosmando: Well, that's what they WANT gaming to be - some kind of highfaluting art-form that is all about political and cultural criticism. In the eyes of these people, gaming (along with everything else, really) is nothing but a political tool to be taken over and used to propagate their worldview.

So yeah, the idea that games are just.. well games, an interactive medium simply about fun, stands directly in-front of their goal. So it's no surprise to see them trying to demonize and humiliate "white guys" as immature, sexist, "neckbeards" or whatever any chance they get.

They don't care about games at all, political ideology of feminism is number 1.
Despite enjoying the game for its gameplay I am starting to regret buying the Last of Us or at the very least its DLC.

The game is being shown off as the poster child for Social Justice games.

My only defense against it now is that I think GTA 5 is GOTY of 2013 and not this.
Post edited September 08, 2014 by Elmofongo
low rated
avatar
Crosmando: Well, that's what they WANT gaming to be - some kind of highfaluting art-form that is all about political and cultural criticism. In the eyes of these people, gaming (along with everything else, really) is nothing but a political tool to be taken over and used to propagate their worldview.
That right there 'taken over' its anxiety over that one thing that the entire opposition (to me) argument comes down to IMO
and it's groundless - Hollywood is never going to stop making films like The Expendables and the games industry is never going to stop making CoD - not that CoD is just about fun and is apolitical anyway - it's pure might-is-right west-is-best right wing propaganda
Then games like Spec Op: The Line subvert that and Deus Ex counters it completely "God is the Dream of Good Government" - Morpheus, Deus Ex
Post edited September 08, 2014 by Fever_Discordia
avatar
Piranjade: Seeing that a woman could have been replaced by a dog shows that in such games she doesn't really have a value of her own. And if this whole discussion made you think about that, I think it's a nice step forward.
Oh, c'mon, you can't be serious. That's a big strawman right there. I used dog as an example. It could be anything else. How many games give players the task of saving a man? Is anyone complaining that you have to rescue Mario in Luigi's Mansion? Is anyone saying that it "objectifies" men? Oh please.

In almost every game you have to "save" something or someone, even a whole race (like saving humanity). Saving women is just ONE of the plot devices. Why is rescuing other men fine, but women isn't? That's just some double standards right there.

avatar
Piranjade: Even if it apparently makes you angry.
The discussion doesn't make me angry. What makes me angry is the amount of BS journalists come up with to push this agenda.

avatar
Piranjade: That doesn't mean that these plot-devices will disappear (and nobody has even asked for that) but they are used with the knowledge in mind of what they are.
But they are NOT what Anita claims they are. That's the point. Games often try to make player emotionally attached to the objective by making you fight for something you care about. It could be saving humanity, saving your dog, your father, your brother, your girlfriend, your boyfriend, it doesn't matter. When you have to rescue male characters, it's fine, when you have to rescue female characters it's misogyny.

avatar
Piranjade: Players wanting additional features, be it characters, modes etc. is not so rare. And devs like to please the players so that more will buy their games.
Read my post. I'm not saying players can't complain about it. What i complained about was how much the gaming press (NOT players) turned a frivolous game design decision into fucking World War 3 by pushing their political agenda even further. My point is that even a simple design decision is seen as "misogyny", which is just ridiculous.

"OHHH, how do you dare to make a game without women as playable characters? You misogynist prick".

Give me a break. Game developers and publishers are being accused of everything because of their design choices.

avatar
Piranjade: *sigh* Muslim is not a race.
It isn't, that was a poor choice of words from my part and for that i apologize. That was a mistake, english is not my first language and i couldn't find a better word when i was typing.

Still, doesn't make my point invalid.

And please, don't *sigh* me. I'm being respectful with you and i would like the same treatment. It was a mistake, it was not intentional.

avatar
Piranjade: *shrugs* And why not offer different physical attributes during character creation? Also having the option to assign a religion doesn't seem a bad thing to me (and I'm an atheist). Although I'm sure that there are already games out there that have that option that I have never heard of.
And why should developers and publishers be FORCED to have all those attributes? I'm not saying developers shouldn't make games with more choices, what i'm saying is that they shouldn't be FORCED to. Do you understand the difference now?

avatar
Piranjade: And it's the players' right to complain. People complain about features, that's completely normal. Be it the lack of an option to play the game offline, the use of save points, the strengths/weaknesses or a certain class, etc. And why shouldn't they complain?
Again, read my post. My post was never addressed at players' complaints. Players complain about a bunch of things, some of them i agree with, others i don't. What i'm critizing in my post is the gaming press and how much they turn everything into a political debate. And sometimes, they have personal reasons to do so, like that Kotaku writer who had personal relationships with Zoe Quinn.

avatar
Piranjade: No need to be afraid that somebody will take away your toys.
First, i'm treating you with respect and i expect the same treatment. I'm not treating you like a kid, so, please, stop. If you can't engage in a civilized discussion without resorting to personal attacks and being disrespectful, then please, don't.

avatar
Piranjade: Porn for example survived worse things. Because it sells.
Vote with your wallet.
Stop pulling a strawman on me. I never said anything about these kind of games not being made anymore. I'm strictly criticizing the gaming press and its attitude. I'm on a gaming forum and i have a right to criticize what i think is wrong. It's my personal opinion.

avatar
Piranjade: They can. And people react to the characters and how they are presented. Some drool, some complain, others don't care.
They can, just like i can criticize them for doing so, which is exactly what i'm doing and apparently you have a problem with it.

avatar
Piranjade: I think we can be pretty sure that Anita as well as Zoe would have preferred to not be victims. Having your personal life discussed in the internet, receiving threats of all kinds is not really fun.
Oh no, we can't be "pretty sure" of that. Anita only became famous because she kept playing the victim card so the "white knights" would come to the rescue. Her entire KS campaign was based on "how much she was being harassed by the evil gamers".

By the way, receiving threats is common when you are an "internet celebrity" that is hated by a vocal segment of the community. It has nothing to do with the fact they they are women. For example, Phil Fish has been getting harassed for a long time even before he went in Quinn's defense. Not too long ago some key (male) Treyarch developers received death threats because of a patch that nerfed one gun in the game.

Before you pull yet another strawman, let me make things clear: i'm NOT defending harassment nor sending threats to these people. What i'm saying is that receiving death threats from annonymous internet users is not uncommon and is definitely not related to the fact that they are women. It's not "misogyny" or anything. It's just some assholes being assholes on the internet as always. Nothing new there.

avatar
Piranjade: You'll always find a bigger problem in the world or somebody who's worse of. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't be allowed to complain about minor things (had a bad day once?).
The thing is, it's not even a "minor problem". It's a problem that simply doesn't exist. Games are entertainment, sane individuals know the difference between a game and real life. Saying that games make gamers misogynists is like saying that violent games make people violent. It's ignorance at its best.

Thinking about it, i think Jack Thopmson is actually not that bad. At least Thompson never had support from the gaming press, but Anita and Zoe do.

avatar
Piranjade: But games do objectify women. Not always, but in some instances they do.
The question is what we do about it. And not doing anything about it can also be a viable option. Like I said before, vote with your wallet.
HiPhish already answred that better than me.

avatar
Piranjade: If you think that in a certain game women are portrayed or treated in a way that is completely not acceptable for you, don't buy the game.
And if a game appeals to you, buy it.
It's as simple as that.
Great, now please tell that to the gaming press so we can finally talk about games again and not about that BS.

avatar
Piranjade: There is no need for all this screaming around "They want to censor devs, they want to take our toys away, they are all meanies pretending to be victims. WAAAH!"
First, i'm not "screaming", i'm posting my opinion on a gaming forum just like you are doing. Second, i will ask again politely to be treated with respect. You keep coming up with personal attacks while i'm treating you with respect. If you can't have a civil discussion in a forum, then please, don't.

avatar
Piranjade: And there is certainly no need for all these threats against people going around.
Ok, now, could you please point out where i said that it was ok send death threats around?
Post edited September 08, 2014 by Neobr10
avatar
HiPhish: Games objectify everything. Everything is just an object or a background. You are acting as if that's a bad thing. Games are not life lessons, they are just silly entertainment. No one is going to play a game and then be like "hmm, so that's how life works". That's the whole fallacy everything hangs on.
This, so much this. Thank you for explaining it much better than me.

Games objectify even human lives, for fuck's sake. How many innocents have we killed in games? Would that be ok in real life? Of course not. Do these games make us violent? Unless you're Jack Thompson, i'm pretty sure you will agree with me that they don't.
avatar
Fever_Discordia: That right there 'taken over' its anxiety over that one thing that the entire opposition (to me) argument comes down to IMO
and it's groundless - Hollywood is never going to stop making films like The Expendables and the games industry is never going to stop making CoD - not that CoD is just about fun and is apolitical anyway - it's pure might-is-right west-is-best right wing propaganda
Then games like Spec Op: The Line subvert that and Deus Ex counters it completely "God is the Dream of Good Government" - Morpheus, Deus Ex
Gaming as an industry is waaaay younger and smaller than Hollywood/film-industry in general, and the rhetoric which the SJW's use is not re-conciliatory, it's not moderate, and it's not about having "their own space", these are people who use their positions of influence in the media to veraciously attack, demonize and belittle game developers if they make something they deem "problematic", ie sexist (see the reaction to the Japanese game "Killer is Dead"). The way the media have treated "gamers" as an entire group, a community, since this Zoe Quinn thing, is downright shameful. And anyone who defends all these disgusting articles which attack all gamers as a group and vilify them by putting them all into one group - evil misogynists and racists - well they can go jump in a motherfucking volcano!

It has exposed for the whole world that the objective of these left-wing/feminist writers at game sites is political and nothing but political. They see gaming as a "boys club" and they want to destroy it, why else would they make all these "Gamer is Dead" and "Death of an Identity: Gamer" articles hysterically after Zoe Quin was criticized. Basically the left-wing gaming press cares about politics before games, and the gamers care just about games.

Hollywood is never going to stop making films like The Expendables and the games industry is never going to stop making CoD - not that CoD is just about fun and is apolitical anyway - it's pure might-is-right west-is-best right wing propaganda
This has NOTHING to to do with it, it's about the gaming community who thinks games are a neutral topic, an interactive medium for fun, and the SJW's who any game that isn't 100% pro-feminist is evil. Can the stories and settings and characters in games have political/social angles - of course, they always have and no one is changing that. But we don't want gaming being cynically used as a tool to push agendas.

Take Gone Home - basically zero gameplay at all - but was given 10/10 reviews across the board basically before it was seen as "progressive".

Really it's a simple matter - kick these fuckheads out of our hobby for good. It's gamers versus activists.
Post edited September 08, 2014 by Crosmando
avatar
Neobr10: This, so much this. Thank you for explaining it much better than me.

Games objectify even human lives, for fuck's sake. How many innocents have we killed in games? Would that be ok in real life? Of course not. Do these games make us violent? Unless you're Jack Thompson, i'm pretty sure you will agree with me that they don't.
That's what's so funny, they have bought into the same lie that Thompson and his conservative ilk peddle - that video games some kind of subliminal mind-control ability to make us good law-abiding gamers into rabid rapists and Nazi's just because we play a game where the females are depicted sexually. All evidence points to that their is NO correlation between violence and anti-social activities and video games.

We've all killed countless thousands of fictional humans in video games, but now we're being told that enough is enough because these games are portraying females in an objectifying way? We shouldn't care about depiction of murder but sexualization/objectification of women is over the line?
low rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: That right there 'taken over' its anxiety over that one thing that the entire opposition (to me) argument comes down to IMO
and it's groundless - Hollywood is never going to stop making films like The Expendables and the games industry is never going to stop making CoD - not that CoD is just about fun and is apolitical anyway - it's pure might-is-right west-is-best right wing propaganda
Then games like Spec Op: The Line subvert that and Deus Ex counters it completely "God is the Dream of Good Government" - Morpheus, Deus Ex
avatar
Crosmando: Gaming as an industry is waaaay younger and smaller than Hollywood/film-industry in general, and the rhetoric which the SJW's use is not re-conciliatory, it's not moderate, and it's not about having "their own space", these are people who use their positions of influence in the media to veraciously attack, demonize and belittle game developers if they make something they deem "problematic", ie sexist (see the reaction to the Japanese game "Killer is Dead"). The way the media have treated "gamers" as an entire group, a community, since this Zoe Quinn thing, is downright shameful. And anyone who defends all these disgusting articles which attack all gamers as a group and vilify them by putting them all into one group - evil misogynists and racists - well they can go jump in a motherfucking volcano!

It has exposed for the whole world that the objective of these left-wing/feminist writers at game sites is political and nothing but political. They see gaming as a "boys club" and they want to destroy it, why else would they make all these "Gamer is Dead" and "Death of an Identity: Gamer" articles hysterically after Zoe Quin was criticized. Basically the left-wing gaming press cares about politics before games, and the gamers care just about games.

Hollywood is never going to stop making films like The Expendables and the games industry is never going to stop making CoD - not that CoD is just about fun and is apolitical anyway - it's pure might-is-right west-is-best right wing propaganda
avatar
Crosmando: This has NOTHING to to do with it, it's about the gaming community who thinks games are a neutral topic, an interactive medium for fun, and the SJW's who any game that isn't 100% pro-feminist is evil. Can the stories and settings and characters in games have political/social angles - of course, they always have and no one is changing that. But we don't want gaming being cynically used as a tool to push agendas.

Take Gone Home - basically zero gameplay at all - but was given 10/10 reviews across the board basically before it was seen as "progressive".
No, they want to destroy the boys-club who call themselves 'Gamers' and free gaming from their control for all to enjoy - That's what they're saying anyway, they want to destroy 'Gamer' as an identity to save gaming!
I'm... I'm not saying that I think that's a GOOD strategy, I think its PR FUBAR but I feel that its a more representative assessment of their stance (or does it come down to 'are you paranoid or an I complacent?')

Again how is CoD and everything that Tom Clancy ever put together not cynically pushing a right-wing might-is-right west-is-best agenda?

And again I think Gone Home was about the arty and not about the homosexuality, if that's what you're alluring to - same as Dear Esther was praised with even less gameplay but also 0% bumming, unless I missed that part on my playthough...
There is no "boys club", anyone is free to play games. What it comes down to is not even the message (which many would agree with), it's that video games writing and journalist has become heavily politicized over the last few years, and gamers are starting to push back. Not because they even disagree with the criticism, but because they just don't to deal with political shit and being preached to in a hobby they engage in for fun.
low rated
avatar
Fever_Discordia: No, they want to destroy the boys-club who call themselves 'Gamers' and free gaming from their control for all to enjoy
Oh really? Then what were they doing when Nintendo was making big cash with the Wii by making games for everyone to enjoy? This isn't about making games for everyone to enjoy, it's about sucking money out of the industry like parasites. They use mafia tactics where as long as you keep paying them they won't harm you. it's no coincidence that Anita is holding all those speeches and working as a consultant and still reminding people that they can donate to her PayPal.

I'll tell you why no one was behind Nintendo: Nintendo games had no agenda, no narrative, no political involvement. They were just silly fun NES/Arcade style video games. And people loved them. But you can't extort money from a company that's this powerful. Now it's open season for Nintendo.
Post edited September 08, 2014 by HiPhish