Live Chat

Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization.

Anything else

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Endoperez » Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:30 am

Gone Home is about story. I haven't played it yet, will comment on the gameplay once I have, but since it's a new IP it hasn't taken any gameplay out of the gamosphere.

I just posted this. It describes your latest rant so accurately it's a bit spooky. New non-gamers invading your safe space and being ok as long as they are not jocks or women, what real games are, etc.
https://storify.com/Quinnae_Moon/one-of-us
With regard to GG, the "meaningful order" here is about history (the story of being bullied in high school, then finding community and shelter among gamers; then along comes the invasion of politics and social justice warriors...; also the story about fighting censorship battles in the 1990s and early 2000s), culture (this includes definitions for what a "game" is or should be; the egalitarian ideal that "no one cares who you are behind the controller" and its counterpart which suggests anyone broaching identity issues is therefore "the real bigot"; the conception of critics like Anita Sarkeesian as a "cultural hegemon" who is somehow corroding the gaming community, either by just stirring up trouble or even trying to outright censor games), and identity (what is a "gamer"?).

This is what creates a canopy of meaning. Many of us have seen those snarky timelines passed around that posit that "women" only became interested in games sometime around 2005-6 and that all was harmonious before then; this is part of the mythology that many in GG accept as a factual reading of their history. The myth of past harmony disturbed by a latter-day invasion is central.
User avatar
Endoperez
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Phoenixwarrior141 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 2:44 am

Endoperez wrote:Gone Home is about story. I haven't played it yet, will comment on the gameplay once I have, but since it's a new IP it hasn't taken any gameplay out of the gamosphere.

Gameplay?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OH MY GOD
GAMEPLAY?
THAT IS FUCKING HILARIOUS.

I just posted this. It describes your latest rant so accurately it's a bit spooky. New non-gamers invading your safe space and being ok as long as they are not jocks or women, what real games are, etc.

No, they can be women, just not feminazis or tumblrettes. That make sense yet?

https://storify.com/Quinnae_Moon/one-of-us
With regard to GG, the "meaningful order" here is about history (the story of being bullied in high school, then finding community and shelter among gamers; then along comes the invasion of politics and social justice warriors...; also the story about fighting censorship battles in the 1990s and early 2000s), culture (this includes definitions for what a "game" is or should be; the egalitarian ideal that "no one cares who you are behind the controller" and its counterpart which suggests anyone broaching identity issues is therefore "the real bigot"; the conception of critics like Anita Sarkeesian as a "cultural hegemon" who is somehow corroding the gaming community, either by just stirring up trouble or even trying to outright censor games), and identity (what is a "gamer"?).

I dunno how to respond to that.


This is what creates a canopy of meaning. Many of us have seen those snarky timelines passed around that posit that "women" only became interested in games sometime around 2005-6 and that all was harmonious before then; this is part of the mythology that many in GG accept as a factual reading of their history. The myth of past harmony disturbed by a latter-day invasion is central.

See, that's not what I believe. I don't believe in those dates. I believe that's how it happened in the first place. Women came in, did their thing, and will move on.

The results of this "conflict" are up to use however, no one else.
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Phoenixwarrior141 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:47 pm

Polygon said more stupid shit.

To say things better then I can, here's NerdCubed:

http://nerdcubedactually.tumblr.com/post/104938993384

I'll find the article later.
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby EPR89 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:52 pm

Stop treating forum threads like twitter feeds.

If there is something you want to talk about, talk about it. If you want to share links, use Facebook.
User avatar
EPR89
 
Posts: 1845
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2012 8:57 am
Location: Germany

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Phoenixwarrior141 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 9:56 pm

Internet is having one of those days, so I can't right now.

BUT, I found it.

Response will come once my internet decides to stop dying every five seconds so I can post something.

Response in an hour.
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Phoenixwarrior141 » Thu Dec 11, 2014 11:00 pm

Alright, hopefully my internet won't die this time.

In short, I disagree. Anyone with a good degree of logical reasoning would agree with me.

I don't have time to respond to every single part of the post, so. I'm just gonna respond to little tid bits I find worth responding to.

I heavily parrot NerdCubed's view on the article, so if you want to read something that is both funny and well written, go to the linked post above me.

I will post the entire paragraph to show you the excerpt in-case you're wondering.

He's the article itself:

http://www.polygon.com/2014/12/10/73648 ... ot-ignored

Anyways:

When used in video games, this cheap line usefully reduces the relationship between products and humans to a base financial transaction. The product has no meaning for those who do not consume it, or so we are supposed to believe.

Except it's true. Porn has no meaning to those who don't look at it. Same with video games.

It has no effect unless you give it one. Until "Misogyny" begins affecting your home life (Or in gaming's case, you standard game experience) you have no reason to get riled up.

Take-Two and publishing sub-brand Rockstar want to be able to say whatever they like about whomever they like, without consequence. At the same time as they reduce GTA 5 to a mere purchasing choice, they also want you to believe that the game is an essential work of art that is being stifled by a mob of censors.

1: They should.
2: Except it is a mere purchasing choice, they have no control over it once you purchase it, so censoring the experience isn't affecting Rockstar, it's affecting YOU, the consumer. Hence it was met with such uproar.

What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life.

No, you're supposed to find pleasure in savaging normal people, among which could be prostitutes.

Excerpt from: "What I personally find repulsive about this game is the pleasure it offers in portraying the savaging of a class of people who are already victims, in real life. This is where GTA 5 shows a lack of judgment. I take issue with the portrayal of sex workers being abused and murdered, because sex workers are already victims, and it's just not right to take your fun in abusing victims."

I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time.

Why should this affect the game though?

Excerpt from: I know a lot of people desperately want to believe that killing a prostitute in GTA 5 is the same as killing any other character, but it's really not. Unlike gangsters or cops or business dudes or hot dog vendors, prostitutes, as a class, are despised, marginalized and abused in real life, all the time. This means that GTA 5 takes its pleasure in humiliating and abusing victims of humiliation and abuse.

My point is that this portrayal of them reinforces hard ideas about the worthlessness of prostitutes

How so? Simply being able to kill them like the other people in the game doesn't really mean much. Actually it destroys your point entirely!

Excerpt from: "Yeah, I know these aren't real people. They are just cartoon characters. My point is not that the on-screen sex workers being murdered are real, nor that the game will prompt people to go out and murder prostitutes. My point is that this portrayal of them reinforces hard ideas about the worthlessness of prostitutes, in ways that are unique to this class of characters in the game. My point is that it is deeply distasteful to gleefully portray victims being shat upon by privilege.Yeah, I know these aren't real people. They are just cartoon characters. My point is not that the on-screen sex workers being murdered are real, nor that the game will prompt people to go out and murder prostitutes. My point is that this portrayal of them reinforces hard ideas about the worthlessness of prostitutes, in ways that are unique to this class of characters in the game. My point is that it is deeply distasteful to gleefully portray victims being shat upon by privilege."

It's one thing for games to portray the slaughter of soldiers and gangsters and even vanilla members of the public. It's another to show us victims being kicked in the teeth, and then pretend this is not worth talking about.

How so?

Excerpt from: "This is something we absolutely should be talking about. It's one thing for games to portray the slaughter of soldiers and gangsters and even vanilla members of the public. It's another to show us victims being kicked in the teeth, and then pretend this is not worth talking about."

That's all for tonight.
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Endoperez » Fri Dec 12, 2014 3:19 pm

Geek, nerd, gamer, hacker.

Are you one of them, some of them, or all of them?
Do they mean the same thing? Do you identify with one of the terms more strongly than the others?

Why?

They are all ultimately more or less the same thing - someone who's good with computers, who enjoys playing on or with a computer.

Yet there is a difference.


Computer geek is almost a computer wizard. Scrawny, but possibly useful, even powerful.
Nerd is often but a loser, at least in movies (I haven't been to USA, Britain etc. so this is hearsay).
Gamer is good at their hobby, and values skillz.
Hacker knows what they're doing,if they want to they can cause more harm than the others.

Also consider: athlete, jock, player, sportsperson. Quite different in associations, but not in meaning.

That is premise nr 1: words have associations.

Once upon a time, "hackers" were the good guys, the white-hats, opposing "crackers", the black-hats.
Even further back, "gay" ment merry.
Now, hackers are the bad guys and gay means homosexual.

That is premise nr 2: associations can change.


Who decided that the words hold these associations? No one in general, but the culture accepted this as a whole. The longer a word is associated with a specific meaning, the harder it is to change it, or to separate it from these secondary meanings.

Small streams, single instances of seeing words and concepts repeatedly in certain contexts, join to form a might river, form the coherent view people hold of certain words, and of identities, groups of people.

That is premise nr 3: what we see affects what we think words mean.


Games, by reinforcing our views of certain words, enforce those views. Those views also affect the people the words represent.

Geeks and gamers have for decades fought against the stereotype of neckbearded manchildren, of basement-dwelling shy and awkward and spotty teenagers, and so on. That's changing, finally! Gamers are now accepted as the people who have many of the skills needed to survive and thrive in our increasingly digital world.

If you think changing the associations with words like geek and gamer was a good thing, shouldn't you agree that words matter, and other people should have the right to try and change other words with negative connotations?
Sex worker, whore, prostitute... very negative. The words have connotations about someone in a weak position, someone being abused or hurt, someone desperate. How is continuing to only show that side of them any different from only showing the worst parts of geekdom?
User avatar
Endoperez
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Phoenixwarrior141 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:16 pm

Because the bad parts of geekdom don't represent the majority.

I don't even know if there are good parts of prostitution.

And that is all irrelevant. GTA V makes fun of gamers, geeks and normal people. Nothing is sacred in GTA V, so it makes fun of everyone. Prostitutes included.

Unless you want special treatment, they should continue making fun of them.
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Endoperez » Fri Dec 12, 2014 4:45 pm

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I don't even know if there are good parts of prostitution.


Why do you choose to ignore that which you do not know or understand? I don't understand.

Why do you think it's okay to bully? Why do you harass others? Why do you get angry when people point out the things you like doing hurt others?
User avatar
Endoperez
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Phoenixwarrior141 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 6:18 pm

Endoperez wrote:
Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I don't even know if there are good parts of prostitution.


Why do you choose to ignore that which you do not know or understand? I don't understand.

Why do you think it's okay to bully? Why do you harass others? Why do you get angry when people point out the things you like doing hurt others?

Oh god I may have pissed off a tumblrette.

Endoperez wrote:Why do you choose to ignore that which you do not know or understand? I don't understand.

Because I don't understand it.


Why do you think it's okay to bully?

I'm don't and I'm not.

Why do you harass others?

I'm not.

Why do you get angry when people point out the things you like doing hurt others?

Because they don't.
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Endoperez » Fri Dec 12, 2014 6:41 pm

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:
Endoperez wrote:Why do you choose to ignore that which you do not know or understand? I don't understand.

Because I don't understand it.


That means you're making a mistake. If you ignore everything you don't understand, you don't learn anything. It will lead to stagnation. Are you, as you are now, as wise as you'll ever be?

If not, you should learn, and try to understand. Not agree, but understand, and then ignore if you feel like it.

Why do you think it's okay to bully?

I'm don't and I'm not.


Note that I did NOT say that you are a bully. I said that what you did is bullying.

What else do you call it when you call people names because they're geeks? When you tell people harassment is okay because it's just for fun? That it's okay because no one was hurt, really? When you tell people to not play games, or ask for games, or talk about what sorts of games they want to play because no one wants to hear them because they're not REAL gamers AND they're girls and no one wants to play with them any way?

That is what you have been doing. That is bullying. Is that what you want to keep doing?
User avatar
Endoperez
 
Posts: 5668
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:41 am
Location: cold and dark and lovely Finland

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Phoenixwarrior141 » Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:51 pm

Endoperez wrote:
That means you're making a mistake. If you ignore everything you don't understand, you don't learn anything. It will lead to stagnation. Are you, as you are now, as wise as you'll ever be?

If not, you should learn, and try to understand. Not agree, but understand, and then ignore if you feel like it.

I do not seek to understand that which would have no effect on me, or is beyond my spectrum of understanding. I will probably never have to understand what the better parts of prostitution (If there are any, I do a lot of research on crimes and criminals and found that there is nothing good about prostitution other than sex for the price of the new Call of Duty game.

My point being, I will never have the learn about prostitution (And if I do, odds are I don't want to and will learn from experience) and thus I don't care to understand it. The reasoning is obvious as it is.



Note that I did NOT say that you are a bully. I said that what you did is bullying.

This quote makes me laugh.



What else do you call it when you call people names because they're geeks?

1 Person and insulting. Not bullying because I'm not seeking him out and trying to make his life an emotional shithole. I said nothing else.

When you tell people harassment is okay because it's just for fun?

I call that saying "Deal with it, people are dicks"

That it's okay because no one was hurt, really?

Would you rather be punched and stabbed physically or emotionally?

Anyone with a grasp of the internet and a thick skin will be able to shrug off the emotional damage.

When you tell people to not play games, or ask for games, or talk about what sorts of games they want to play because no one wants to hear them because they're not REAL gamers AND they're girls and no one wants to play with them any way?

1: Never said that people shouldn't play games.
2: I said that, but that's not as bad as you'd like me and onlookers to believe.
3: Never said that.
4: Never said that.
5: Never said that.


That is what you have been doing. That is bullying. Is that what you want to keep doing?

No, it isn't. I'm being a dick to varying groups of people. Not going after one person and making their life hell. I'm not that much of a soulless douche.
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby SamW » Sat Dec 13, 2014 1:28 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:Games should not be regarded as art, they shouldn't try to be pompous, pretentious political crap that try to send a message completely unrelated to games to the player.


Games can be made because someone wanted to develop it and others want to play it. Game can be regarded as art and they can be used by creators to convey ideas and emotions to the target audience.
Games can also be choose to not be artistic and can choose to be based on fun, reflexes, or competition. Games are a medium, and as a medium, anything is allowed, except for trying to define the medium in opinionated restrictive ways.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I said women can game as long as they leave the feminist bullshit behind when the game begins.


People can take whatever ideas they want when they do whatever recreation activity they wan't. People consume media by interpretation and though the filter of their own, minds. If one removes their self from an experience, it will not be something that can be enjoyed or appreciated.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:No, not all of them. I said that if you want to make games with female characters so long as Gameplay > Females, and you don't be to pretentious about it.


People can be allowed to make games where a focus on a narrative centered around a female character is given priority to well developed gameplay.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:The general rule is that you shouldn't change what exists, but add more games with female characters.

People can be allowed to change what exists, especially with respect to digital goods where something can never truly be destroyed. The only caveat to that is when a game developer choose to destroy something by changing something with an automatic update, and in the process attempt to remove all copies of what was previously there.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:See, that's not what I believe. I don't believe in those dates. I believe that's how it happened in the first place. Women came in, did their thing, and will move on.

Be careful about your ambiguities, I believe when you say 'women' you mean to represent the people who you believe are attacking games, or the group of people you clearly hate.

You seem to be a bit naive. These people you refer to will not simply move on. In fact, people who are the most vocal, critical, and at times the most vicious, are also some of the most invested, passionate, and loyal people.
SamW
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:08 am

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby Phoenixwarrior141 » Sat Dec 13, 2014 2:26 am

I meant that games shouldn't be those things, not that they can't.
User avatar
Phoenixwarrior141
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Fri Aug 02, 2013 12:37 pm
Location: I've lost all sense of direction, I'm quite concerned to be honest.

Re: Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization

Postby SamW » Sat Dec 13, 2014 4:16 am

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:I meant that games shouldn't be those things, not that they can't.

They CAN AND SHOULD be whatever their creator intends them, and is capable of making them, to be.

They can be...
They are allowed to be...
They should be...
AND
They are worthwhile to be...

I want to be clear, what you have been saying is wrong, and based on the egotistical ideal that only your standards are appropriate when judging what has worth, and only games you want are worthy of being asked for.
SamW
 
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:08 am

PreviousNext

Return to Randomness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group cron