Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

As entertainment media, games are inherently 'unnecessary'

We aren't talking about whether games are or aren't unnecessary, we talking about what is or isn't necessary within games. There are worlds of difference.

Most don't care, but they do recognize the game doesn't need it.

Games can be improved by adding unneeded things. I mean, it could be argued that music isn't needed...

I'm sure one adds a bit more to the game then the other, human females in FTL add little to nothing, the soundtrack however adds enough to be worth keeping.

[Korban3]

I have a very good time turning the music off in games and trying to replace it with ambient sound effects and things.

Like, War Thunder has some really great soundtrack. But, it's also really cool to hear the sounds of the planes rattling and clanking when you put a lot of Gs through them, or when you're shooting and stuff. It really adds to the experience in simulation games like that, when the sound effects are ambient enough to ditch the soundtrack and get a whole new feel.

[Endoperez]

Most don't care, but they do recognize the game doesn't need it.

Games can be improved by adding unneeded things. I mean, it could be argued that music isn't needed...

I'm sure one adds a bit more to the game then the other, human females in FTL add little to nothing, the soundtrack however adds enough to be worth keeping.

What does music add more of? What are you measuring here? Fun? Enjoyment? Thematic consistency? "Quality?"

Are only features that fulfill a certain minimum requirement of fun (or whatever) allowed to exist in games? Is it a certain percentage of the forum population that has to approve a change?

I don't think so. Any feature that adds to the fun of the game is good, even if some other features would be better. But the way you react, it makes it seem like female characters would make the game worse, and not just improve it in a way you don't think is important.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Enjoyment I guess, I think people liked FTL's soundtrack more then the female sprites to be honest.

That isn't off polling data, I think the gameplay benefits more from a good soundtrack then female characters.

[EPR89]

That isn't off polling data, I think the gameplay benefits more from a good soundtrack then female characters.

For you.
For others it may be the other way round.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Yes, but in games where immersion/roleplay isn't the point (Name: Spec Ops), I'd say a good soundtrack outmatches females.

Would you rather a strong female character in Spec Ops? Or:

[Endoperez]

Enjoyment I guess, I think people liked FTL's soundtrack more then the female sprites to be honest.

That isn't off polling data, I think the gameplay benefits more from a good soundtrack then female characters.

I also think gameplay benefits more from a good soundtrack than female characters. However, you claimed that female characters are unnecessary as if that was a point against them.

Soundtrack is important. There's many good games with great soundtracks. It's a pity so many of those good games with great soundtracks do NOT have playable female characters, when they could have both. I mean, how hard can it be it to make Princess Peach a playable character?

[+] Answer - Very hard

http://www.themarysue.com/playable-princess-peach/
June 12th 2013
Princess Peach is playable in the new Super Mario, Super Mario 3D World, coming out for the Wii U.

"Aside from the introduction of the new cat-suit powerup, this game is also exciting because it is the first time Peach has been a playable character in a main-series Mario game (ie, the platformer staples that have been the core of the Mario series since the series began) since 1988 in Super Mario Bros. 2."

http://www.p4rgaming.com/peach-no-longe ... idnap-her/
September 26, 2013
Peach No Longer Playable After Gamers Get Confused by Story Where Bowser Doesn’t Kidnap Her

"However, Peach has now been replaced by a second Toad after discovering that the complex story turned away many potential players."

Ladies and gentlemen, THE female character with most appearances in video games, to date! Not kidnapping her is so confusing it's better to have two identical, nameless, anonymous creatures than making her playable!

[Phoenixwarrior141]

Gamers can't handle complicated stories, or women. What did you think would happen?

[Endoperez]

Gamers can't handle complicated stories, or women. What did you think would happen?

I just want to see games written as well as books, with as much variety as in books.

Not just games with as much text as in books, though, although PS:Torment is good!

[Phoenixwarrior141]

That would require game developers to give enough shits to write.

Also, Anita uploaded a video.

Before watching it, I want you to give my your perception of what the video will be.

[Endoperez]

That would require game developers to give enough shits to write.

Also, Anita uploaded a video.

Before watching it, I want you to give my your perception of what the video will be.

Actually, I already saw that video, and it's "based on the article “Playing with privilege: the invisible benefits of gaming while male” written by Tropes vs Women in Video Games producer Jonathan McIntosh."

Anita didn't make it.

The video is titled '25 Invisible Benefits of Gaming While Male' and I'd also be interested in hearing what people think it's about, before or after watching it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E47-FMmMLy0

[Phoenixwarrior141]

I watched a response, and came to this conclusion:


1: If you aren't in a socially equal position (Regardless of your position in the game, or in real life in comparison), then there is a privilege there.

2: Not having a social disadvantage is a privilege and makes you the problem.

3: Hiding under a banner of equality when in reality you simply want to change the status quo to suit you is okay.

[Endoperez]

1: If you aren't in a socially equal position (Regardless of your position in the game, or in real life in comparison), then there is a privilege there.

2: Not having a social disadvantage is a privilege and makes you the problem.

3: Hiding under a banner of equality when in reality you simply want to change the status quo to suit you is okay.

1: Agreed. If there are two people, they can be either equal, or privileged in one way or the other.

2: Disagreed. The privilege (which is the status quo) is the problem, not the person.

3: Agreed, I think. The banner is pointing out an inequality, and the person holding it is calling for change. Close enough.

I don't see the 3 as a bad thing, because I think the status quo is bad. On a scale of Mordor to Equestria, the status quo is around Gotham.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

I was mostly parodying those points because most of them are wrong.

1: This point is wrong on multiple accounts. Social positions (Regardless of your actual economic position) are often subjective and biased on a case by case basis. This means that you can't ever be "Equal" to someone else because of the continued biased. Even if you're successful with a good job and such, radical feminists would think you aren't socially equal because people think of you differently and because of different things of importance to one gender are not unique to the opposite sex, for whatever reason.

Meaning, if men value women with big tits, they are wrong and are degrading women.

Which is wrong, some see the sexual power as empowerment, American Dad touches up on this.

And there isn't a privilege there just because you aren't socially equal to someone, that's just blatant pretentiousness on the other person's part.

2: This is exactly what the feminists would say, they don't disagree with the status quo, they disagree with the people benefiting from it, even if the beneficiaries don't actually care and just go with the flow.

3: This came from the SJW and Anita logic, they have self serving goals and hide under the banner of social justice and then push a sexist agenda under this banner (Which generally rallies tons of support)

[Endoperez]

1. Intersectionality means you can be middle-class white trans male, and you still benefit from the privileges even as you are hindered by the disadvantages.

All whites benefit as a part of that group even as some whites personally suffer.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality

And what they mean is that the pressure caused by men and women valuing big tits can be harmful. It's covered by the term sexual objectification and it's a complex issue. The wikipedia article also mentions the empowerment angle, and male objectification angle, and the ethics of sex angle.

2. I'm a feminist. I disagree with the way you originally stated this, but mostly agree with what you said here.

I disagree with the the status quo where only some of the people benefit from it, even if the beneficiaries don't actually care and just go with the flow. That attitude is what I'd like to see changed. I don't want to change what people do. I want them to acknowledge that there is inequality, while continuing to do their thing.

The only case that would change is when they feel bad about doing a thing because they now realize it's wrong. Like, maybe rape jokes are bad. Maybe some heroes could be female. Maybe women can be programmers. Maybe in industry events I should assume that everyone is a dev and not a booth babe or hunk, so I don't accidentally insult anyone.

3. Whoooooo boy...
It is self serving if they are female, yes, because wimen as a group are in many but not all ways disadvantageous. I don't know if that's the right word for 'the opposite of privileged'.
It is kinda the opposite of sexism.
Toting a banner of social justice is okay when that's what you are fighting for.