Songs like this from Fear Factory?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CniyWlVhrC4

Also relevant: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/04/06/misogyny-sexism-and-why-rps-isnt-shutting-up/

I'll take that as a "no" then.

Why? Tolerance.
Individual B's unwillingness to
a) accept A's point of view
b) accept criticism for his point of view
c) explain his attitude
... is at least as intolerant as A asking him about it. Please note: asking, not demanding.

You said it yourself: because it is so ingrained. It's so ingrained that A shouldn't even try to criticise it or else... face it, the forceful approach isn't coming from RPS (who pretty much haven't the force to coerce anyone) in this case.
The interesting question now is, when does this ingrained attitude starts to become a problem, so that it's valid to criticise it?

But terms like witch hunt or censorship don't come up in RPS's favor, just from browsing through this very thread? Wow.
Please tell me, who gave when group B the free pass to do everything and why? When and where were they allowed to leave said responsibility behind? And don't dare to come with freedom of speech, as this applies to BOTH sides. :)

Once again, group A is accused of radicalism, while group B is ... just fair and square and not radical at all? Please tell me you're NOT seeing it so black and white. :p
No coercion is never the best means. Never was, never will be. However, no change at all within the last 20 years (apart from a few scattered instances), at least not on the broad scale. In fact, the opposite is true - it's gotten worse.
Once again, when will it start to become a broader problem for more and more people? The correct answer might be: right now.
... and again, RPS surely doesn't have the power to coerce anyone. So why is it, that group B seems to fear any criticism coming that way and fights it with tooth and nail, claiming radicalism and coercion, without seeing just how much they're making themselves guilty in that department?

You've gotten an important piece wrong here. Let's stay with the devs as neutral parties, shall we? Who's the empowered and corrupted here? RPS? Nope.
The power is in gamers hand. See Crytek's take on realism, forced by the mighty $ coming from the gamers. Where does RPS stand as a force inhere? Among the also-ran.
... and you have a great example of how to handle it. Being upfront, even admitting that they're not entierly comfortable with it, but why they still do it.

For the collateral damage and the cultural crusade.... I'd be extremely careful to mount such claims. You can apply those to group B as much as you do on A, with about the same amount of evidence and facts.

Not it's not impossible. But once again, you fail to see the affirmative action on your side, supporting group B - quiet ironic.

Since you're the one who brought racism in, would you claim it was defeated (or at least, pushed back) mainly because of liberalism, good will and talking about / criticising it (which is, again, what your side is denying) without any or much coercion (last time, not in the power of RPS)?

Hope I didn^t, though I fear I created a monster. :p

Please tell me you don't truly believe that creepy deformed hypertrophic bodies are what most of the women consider attractive.

Look at fan service for women: pretty, handsome expressive faces or cold beauty, good proportions, tone and muscle definition more important than a great deal of muscle mass. Muscles pumped to the point they look like a deformity are unusual (I'm keeping this safe for work).

Ridiculous extreme muscular bodies are a male power fantasy.

Can you imagine yourself telling a male player that he cannot play anymore the strong heroic super muscular alter ego he likes to imagine himself to be, because it is bad for his ego?

Even if I sustain you up to a point - imo a credible a action hero, male or female, must be at least a little fit, not a regular potatoes sack - I'm afraid you'll need to gather a larger consensus among men for that to change. I don't know how many men want to see Conan in trousers like you do.

That depends solely on said hero's powers. For me it's ridiculous that Superman has big muscles. If lifting a car is nothing to him, he should be working out by lifting planets to develop any muscles at all.

Living on earth should make him rather skinny.

So, if hero's powers are solely mental, I see no problem with chubby men being superheroes.

My power fantasy are rather slick men in suits who destroy worlds without lifting a finger, I don't care about muscles and waxed chests, btw :P

Btw. You are saying that women don't want to play sexy female chracters in revealing clothing but you also asume all/most men want to play Conan-like supermuscular heroes wearing only pants - isnt' it a little bit sexist approach from you?

PS. free market isn't a democracy. If vast majority of LoL players are male than designing game characters to appeal to them is nothing wrong - it's business.

Most men don't like balloon breasts or monstrous thighs either. Video game characters are first and foremost larger than life ideas, hyper men and hyper women with their respective traits (muscles, breasts, hips, chins, thighs) exaggerated to fit their exaggerated status. A soldier in a video game is a hyper soldier that kills hundreds of enemies and looks accordingly.

Personally, there are very, very few video game characters I consider attractive in the classical sense.

Mainstream games have yet to undergo the shift towards a pansexuality that appeals to men and women alike in the way that mainstream movies have in the last 20 years or so, I'd definitely agree with that.

You're not alone.

Yes, I do think it's far-fetched and evasive, for several reasons. As said before, "we're not sending a message" is a rather ridiculous claim. As explained previously, I believe him that his team may not have an _agenda_ when they create the characters, but claiming that their choices don't send messages is either clueless or clumsily evasive. He could have said that he believes the messages that their design choices sent to not be offensive, or that he sees them as irrelevant in the context of the rest of the game - there are lots of options for a meaningful reply. But claiming that they don't even exist is just a very weak attempt of evading the issue.


Because he's asked to. He's an official spokesperson asked about features of his game. He's free to decline to answer if he deems the topic too hot or himself unprepared. He's free to declare the question as irrelevant if that's his stance. There are ways to deal with such questions. What he tried, though, was weaseling out of the question with an extremely weak all-purpose defense ("we aren't sending a message") and faking sympathy for a criticism without even knowing what exactly was criticized.

Yes, it's one of the marketing tactics that I find absolutely no respect for: Faking sympathy in order to silence criticism. Either he doesn't see a need to take the criticism seriously, then he can confront it (there are various ways of doing so). Or he does take it seriously, then he can address it. Instead, he "agreed" to a criticism in a conversation where he couldn't even know what exactly was criticized.

If you mean whether I'd enjoy being in a situation where I have to go on record with a statement about a hotly debated issue, knowing that there are some people out there who will turn it against me if they see a chance - no, it's not a particularly enjoyable situation. But it's one that you have to deal with when you are a spokesperson for something, or responsible for anything that may go out into public distribution (like a game). The thing is, as someone who has been in such situations for a couple of years, I _know_ that there are much better ways to address difficult questions, and I maintain that Browder's approach was weak and clumsy.

I'm not saying he's sexist, I'm not saying he's a bad person - I have way too little information on him to make such judgements, and I refuse to fill the blanks with my own assumptions. I think the ad hominem attacks, shoehorning people into strawmen, and subsituting unknown details with one's own assumptions, is already done more than enough by others, for example by insulting the other guy in the interview as "feminidiot", as if insults would contribute anything beneficial to the discussion. I _am_ saying that someone in his position can be expected to have a better way of addressing such questions than saying "We aren't running for president."

Whom it is a problem for? :) I am not in group B, I'm in group A, but in a perpendicular topic.

I'm kosher with group A asking for, complaining about, criticizing, avoiding, ridiculing, disrespecting, boycotting, etc… they can choose their own lines in the sand to bring such actions to play. Everyone else will respond as per the same rules. But on sexism we're past merely asking in some places already. I mentioned earlier existing legal definitions of rape and discrimination.

Notice I'm saying this applies to both groups. You are mistaken that I don't see similar overreactions across the lines. But I see very clearly who are the ones that are overtly or under the table bringing state coercive power into the equation.

It’s not that I fail to see affirmative action on my side, it's that to me sexual privileges are hardly affirmative action - they are mostly not legislative. Though I'm sure you can find examples (historical remnants mostly - which I'd repeal in a second), just like I can find examples the other way. Per above.

Overall I'm mostly neutral in the sexism debate, so I'll excuse myself from further detail if you don't mind.


On racism, looking at history, and the majority of world population I think the American Civil War, the British anti slavery campaigns and the Cold War were critical for Africans. I think economical development is the critical factor working currently in favor of Asians, pure demographics were the main factor preventing the situation from becoming worse in the past.

When there are negative liberties being abused (slavery, mutilation, conquest) I have no problem with war and coercive police power (within limits - international politics are another tricky area for libertarians) in favor of changing that reality. But on the softer bigotry of positive liberties not being equal I would expect only positive approaches to be taken (first paragraph), or you cross a line into becoming worse than what you're fighting.


Now as Psy mentioned, I'd rather avoid derailing this into an even more political debate between liberal laissez faire worldviews (which I have on cultural and economical spheres) and the pervasive current political attitude. Do PM me if that interests you.

You did not create a monster, but maybe you see me as one? :) I freely admit I consider myself Machiavellian politically. In a situation where the power is staked against you… seems smarter. Not very Alpha Male perhaps... but I get mine.

Kindly do tolerate me, and yes I was provocative at the end on purpose :p I hope this clarifies my views.

Help solve the problem in real life, then you won't have to deal with it in games anymore. Only because you want to ignore it, doesn't make it go away.
Just wanting to play your game so you can get away in your fantasy world isn't an excuse. There are women who can't get away from sexism even in those fantasy world...

I don't want to tell people what to do and what to care about, but if more people would care about such stuff (be it sexism, politics etc.), maybe we'd get to change things a little bit faster.

Ultimately, though, I can't say I don't like my fanservice (be it in movies, games, comics, etc.). Only it shouldn't be so blatantly one-sided. Throw in something for the women as well, so they can enjoy it :D

Good question to ask a MOBA developer:
"Is there last-hitting in your game?"
Bad question to ask a MOBA developer:
"Are there homosexuals in your game?"
Good question to ask a MOBA developer:
"Could you tell me about how your implementation of 'team levels' addresses the challenges support characters face?"
Bad question to ask a MOBA developer:
"Could you tell me about how your lack of snow-covered environments addresses the issue of global warming?"

Random thought:

Women often consider powerful men sexy.
Men often consider sexy women powerful.

Why are there no complaints about the sexism found in overly-buff male characters?

Because men are'nt exposed in the same way women are.

Go back and check out those screenshots. Looks exposed to me. *shrug*