People are always going to bully, even if the culture of the game changes, people are still going to bully...

Hmm...

So you say video games do contribute to sexism in real life. So it would probably mean video games do contribute to violence in real life.

So if we should fight sexism in video games, we should probably also fight violence in video games and ban it for good.

As I previously said (and you ignored) I would not have a problem with a game site discussing the politics IN A PARTICULAR GAME, retrospectives on philosophical, culture or political things in games. As in well thought-out stuff.
But that isn't what RPS does, they have a very, very narrow political ideology and they spout it at 100 objective truth whenever they get the chance. Maybe you think shouting "check your privilege" and denigrating anyone who disagrees with you is "discussion", but I do not. What I take offense to is people using gaming as an outlet for spreading their political ideology. This is pure paranoia.

You wouldn't play it and you would have a problem with it.

Lets create another scenario though. What if most games were like this?

Yes, you are correct. So that makes Psyringe, also correct. I forgot that fact. The fact that everything we see, shapes us. But I still don't see anything wrong with sexed up females in games.
The only point your making is for one side to win, the other side has to lose. It is impossible to please everyone. If someone knew the secret to pleasing everyone, that someone would be the ruler of the Earth, tomorrow.

Isn't it kind of bizarro, too, when you claim that entertainment is not political at all - and I guess that means in entertainment everything should be allowed? - but at the same time you seem to be afraid of someone putting "politically correct" ideas in games, because then it would become political and propaganda all of a sudden and this should not be allowed, because those are the wrong ideas to be featured in entertainment, as opposed to "politically incorrect" ones, which obviously are not politcal? ;)

I would find myself a niche, just like I found a niche with TBS games.

I don't like most of the new AAA games, not becuase of sexism, but because of other reasons. I realize the fact I am not their target audience, so I find something else to do. I still play a lot of video games even though the biggest hits don't seem to cater to me.

AAA games are primarily targeted at male teenage audience. That doesn't only exclude females, but also excludes me. Some people will get over the fact and play them anyway and find them entertaining, and some of them will whine online about Mass Effect's boob enlargement in the course of the series.

and by the way... If the numbers of women who have a problem with oversexualized polygons in games are big, they should already be a big enough audience for AAA companies to find it a good revenue source.

If you had a restaurant, and figured 30% or so of your customers were vegetarians and eat only fries because all your dishes are meat based, the only reasonable option is to bring a vegetarian menu.

If video game industry doesn't think it's worth a shot to make more video games catering to women, maybe they just don't spend as much money on games as men?

And as I've said, most TV commercials depict males in a very sexist, misandric way. But I don't care.

Blizzard is a private entity. They used their own private money to fund a game they like to make. As a customer my only choice is to either buy it or not (and I will probably not, because I don't like MOBA).

Many women also don't care about oversexualized females in video games. Most of the women who like cosplay, for example, like to dress up sexy as their favourite sexy characters. This "women shouldn't be sexy in public / media" is just a strange approach to me.

Telika is right, man. It seems you hate to surrender but you should give it up. Games help shape us, just like movies, books, TV shows, stories your parents told you, myths etc

This is a load of bullshit, and really if you are going to make such ridiculous claims like "your whole worldview is acquired through tales, medias, movies, myths, models, advertisements, etc" then you are going to have to provide proof for those claims. Really it's bizarro claims like this which politicians use as justification for trying to censor or ban video games, or anything really. There's no evidence that watching films, reading books or playing games with violent or bigoted content makes someone violent or bigoted.

I mean sorry, but it seems to me like either your politics are more important to you than your personal interests, that or you are unable to separate the two of them.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18385_7-bullshit-police-myths-everyone-believes-thanks-to-movies.html I know it's cracked but please check out this article.

Journey to Kelabra? :)

I think it's a lot easier to approve of something when it's not segregating you.

I for one, would welcome games with less sexualized female chars. I'd rather a well written female char than a female char that serves as male eye candy.

Oh Jesus :D

Where did I do that? Please note that I dot even say anything about "Heroes of the Storm" so far, so how exactly have I "attacked" that game (or any other)?

I don't think that's a good argument. Saying "It's just a game" does not contribute anything to any discussion and does not clarify anything. It's just an evasive maneuver that can be used in any situation. Let me give you an example.

Let's say I write a game in you are a torture master. There's a helpless victim in front of you, and you can apply all sorts of torture to him, the victim will react realistically (cry, beg, bleed, whimper, die, etc.). The game awards you with points the more cruel you are. When a journalist asks me whether that might not be a bit too much, my only answer is "It's just a game". Is that a good answer? Obviously not. If I write a game like that, then I should at least be able to explain _why_ I thought that would be a good idea.

Let's say I wrote a shooter, and a journalist asks me whether I don't see a problem with depicting violence, insinuating that my game might instigate boys to run amok with a weapon. My answer to that is "It's just a game." Is this a good answer? Obviously not. It doesn't address the question, it doesn't address the issue or the concern behind it. It's just a cheap cop-out that doesn't even take the question seriously. A _good_ answer would have been to confront the concern and dismantle it - telling the journalist that there is no scientific basis for a connection between games and amok runners, etc. And as a spokesperson of a company that produces games, I _should_ obviously be able to address such questions in an intelligent manner, instead of just evading them with a cop-out argument.

Now, what did Browder do? Did he address the issue and the concern behind it, or did he evade it with a cop-out line?

If anything you should compare it with the attitude towards violence not violence itself; that would be like saying that sexism in videogames causes people to commit sex crimes.

But you're already going to the extremes again; has anyone talked about "banning" anything from videogames in this discussion? Even the interviewer only asked about alternatives, not about removing sexy characters from the game.


It might be a strange approach because you made it up yourself. ;)