Polygon gives Beyonetta 2 a 7.5 because of sexualization.

[EPR89]

quote]

Are you against A) the message that's being delivered or B) the method of getting it noticed?

Little of both.

The request is, in my honest opinion, wrong. Wanting everyone to be equal is a stupid suggestion no matter who's being sexist towards, wanting the game to change itself because you don't like how it is, is stupid and wrong.

So it's stupid and wrong because you feel that it is stupid and wrong...
Do I have to explain to you (again) why this line of argumentation is unacceptable or do you get it by now?

I'd also like to point out that in those threads sexism was never a central point. People just wanted to know if those female models were still considered because to some players this would improve the appeal. To the others it wouldn't hurt the appeal. You've said this yourself.
So where's the harm in considering those characters? I don't see how it is stupid and wrong. I understand that it makes no sense to you because you can't see the other side for some strange reason. But calling it stupid and wrong in general, just because of your own attitude is pathetically pompous and arrogant.

The method of it being delivered isn't helping.

What method do you suggest?
Or rather, what was wrong with the method in the first place?
What happened was people posting in the forum and asking a simple question.
What is the alternative? Isn't that what the forums for Early Access titles are there for. And doesn't the result, a civilised discussion with the developers chiming in and considering the arguments, show that it was the ideal way?
________________________________________

How the fuck were the people on the Minimum forum being loud and obnoxious?

Figure of speech, I meant they were being extremely vocal, like GamerGate.

Figure of speech my arse!
You can't call someone loud and obnoxious and then say that you didn't mean to call them that and that it was just a figure of speech. It isn't a figure of speech. You just called them loud and obnoxious to an extent that makes them similar to very outspoken fringe groups. It's just like before, when you called more roleplay informed approaches to shooters stupid.
Those threads were nothing like anything coming out of the mouths of vocal GG members or "feminazis" and if you had read them you'd know that. To even insinuate that the are comparable is simply not fair. But it's well established by now that you don't care about fair representations of views you don't agree with. Probably why don't even bother to check them out in the first place. You are just interested in headlines and slogans. Anything beyond that is apparently not worth your time and effort.

[Endoperez]

The request is, in my honest opinion, wrong. Wanting everyone to be equal is a stupid suggestion no matter who's being sexist towards, wanting the game to change itself because you don't like how it is, is stupid and wrong.

Now here's stuff to talk about

I agree, it is stupid to expect everyone to be truly equal.

Wishing for it, wishing the world was like that, while acknowledging that it isn't, is idealistic. There's nothing wrong in idealism, as long as it doesn't harm others. I wish the world was perfect, but know it isn't.

Working towards this perfect world is naive, yes, but also admirable. There's a reason people who want to change the world become the heroes, the villains or the fools in so many stories.



However, it is possible to work towards something concrete, and try to achieve it, without being too naive about it.
It's what The American Dream is all about, isn't it? That hard work will pay off in the end. It's what Gamergate is about (to some, and it's a damn shame it isn't for everyone), changing games journalism because there's things wrong with it. It's what feminism is about, changing how people think so that things are better tomorrow.

Of course you can't change the world for the better all at once, you'd have to be stupid to believe that. But you can change a small part of it, so that one day after a thousand other small changes, the world is slightly better. Or not, in which case I end up angry and bitter.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

So it's stupid and wrong because you feel that it is stupid and wrong...
Do I have to explain to you (again) why this line of argumentation is unacceptable or do you get it by now?

I say it's stupid and wrong because it's stupid to want everyone to conform to your standards and wrong to suggest artistic changes to a different artist's work.

Mind artistic, not gameplay or mechanics, artistic.

I'd also like to point out that in those threads sexism was never a central point. People just wanted to know if those female models were still considered because to some players this would improve the appeal.

Well aware, none of those players showed up in the threads though.

To the others it wouldn't hurt the appeal. You've said this yourself.
So where's the harm in considering those characters?

Again,it's superfluous and excess, those who want to play an RPG or role play in a game can do that now, and won't be attracted further because of a simple gender swap.

I don't see how it is stupid and wrong.

See first comment.

I understand that it makes no sense to you because you can't see the other side for some strange reason. But calling it stupid and wrong in general, just because of your own attitude is pathetically pompous and arrogant.

You misinterpret me. I said the suggestion itself is stupid to make and wrong to want, not that the motives were the same.
The motives were probably justified and not as evil as you'd assume I assume, but the suggestion is stupid for wanting everyone to conform to your standards and wrong for wanting to change the artistic and intellectual premise of someone.

It's also petty, and would add nothing to the game. Just like making Captain Walker a woman in Spec Ops is the most retarded idea to ever hit the forums.

What method do you suggest?
Or rather, what was wrong with the method in the first place?

The current method is a tad pushy, it would be a little better if there was a simple note to the developer, instead of thinking it's something that needs to be there, it would be a little better if it was a simple proposal, and not a full blown suggestion for the game's development.

I guess I'd rather see people be less precious and pushy about these suggestions, and instead simply message the developers in the format of "This is a common suggestion that would add nothing but cosmetics to the game, take that as you will" or something of the like.

That said, the way in which the method is delivered currently isn't that bad, I just think it's a little pushy. But my opinion is also somewhat erratic and occasionally biased, so take it as you will.

What happened was people posting in the forum and asking a simple question.
What is the alternative? Isn't that what the forums for Early Access titles are there for. And doesn't the result, a civilised discussion with the developers chiming in and considering the arguments, show that it was the ideal way?

Indeed, but I'd consider the forums for more discussion to the game itself, or suggestions of some relevance to the game itself, we can both agree more skins will not affect gameplay.

Figure of speech my arse

You can say that all you like. That's what I meant.

You can't call someone loud and obnoxious and then say that you didn't mean to call them that and that it was just a figure of speech. It isn't a figure of speech.

For this it was. I would say that the people on the Minimum forums are about as vocal as the people on GG and the radical feminists, maybe not loud and obnoxious, but just as vocal as the people who are.

You just called them loud and obnoxious to an extent that makes them similar to very outspoken fringe groups. It's just like before, when you called more roleplay informed approaches to shooters stupid.

When games (See: Spec Ops and Minimum and Call of Duty multiplayer) don't intend to immerse the player, nor want to, why should they?

I'm curious actually.

Those threads were nothing like anything coming out of the mouths of vocal GG members or "feminazis" and if you had read them you'd know that.

Never said they were, I said they were as vocal as those groups, not that they were taking any sides.

[Endoperez]

I say it's stupid and wrong because it's stupid to want everyone to conform to your standards and wrong to suggest artistic changes to a different artist's work.

Mind artistic, not gameplay or mechanics, artistic.

That's just your standard man. Isn't it stupid to want everyone follow it?

Drawings, paintings, books, movies, songs, dance, all of art has been critiqued for as long as they exist. It's how the media grows. It's called critique.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

I also don't expect people to conform to my standards either.

And yes, critique helps everything get better, however there's a difference between going up to a developer and saying "I don't like x artistic premise" or "I don't like y art style" and saying "I don't like x mechanics, fix them".

That isn't a universal standard either, so some people don't see a difference and for some people it's a world of difference.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

People were calling Squad sexist a year ago for not having female Kerbals in KSP because every video game debate always starts and ends with:

"WILL SOMEBODY PLEEAAASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!"

Of. Fucking. Course.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

And apparently people agree with me:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/220200/di ... 1417391970

One post actually:

I couldn't give a lesser ♥♥♥♥, if there are female pilots available in KSP or not.
If the devs want that in their game, just let them do it.

But if the devs are thinking about adding them just to satisfy the unjustified whining from feminist ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥s, who have no interest in games like this anyways, I can only say:

DON'T DO IT!

[EPR89]

So you're back to claiming that Kerbals right now don't look male and that people who would like female Kerbals are flat-out wrong because it is stupid to try and identify yourself with characters like them to the point where you call them feminazis or stuff like that and insinuate that everyone who would like to have those characters in the game voices their opinion by accusing the developers of being sexist, rather than simply just voicing their opinion...

Nice!

Good to see that your threads on these topics apparently can't move anywhere. Just like the flat arguments you use. Hopefully this will allow me to simply ignore any further posts you make instead of wasting my time trying to make you see the other side of the argument, something you apparently are unable to do and also have no interest in.

[Korban3]

[Ragdollmaster]

"Some people agree with my closed-ended viewpoint so it is now validated"



I hate to invoke Godwin's law in such an insignificant discussion, but I'm sure a lot of people agreed with Hitler, too

[Phoenixwarrior141]

So you're back to claiming that Kerbals right now don't look male

You were on to something with this, that coulda actually made a point and made sense. And now you're not.

Good job. Guess I expected a little too much from someone who's interest in character creation starts and ends with "Roleplaying"


No, that wasn't what I was trying to say at all.

and that people who would like female Kerbals are flat-out wrong because it is stupid to try and identify yourself with characters like them

Not what I said at all either. God you're on a roll today!

to the point where you call them feminazis or stuff like that and insinuate that everyone who would like to have those characters in the game voices their opinion by accusing the developers of being sexist, rather than simply just voicing their opinion...

Well, considering the thread did that in it's entirety, wanting females just BECAUSE, I'd say I'm a little less wrong this time.

Nice!

Good to see that your threads on these topics apparently can't move anywhere. Just like the flat arguments you use. Hopefully this will allow me to simply ignore any further posts you make instead of wasting my time trying to make you see the other side of the argument, something you apparently are unable to do and also have no interest in.

I do see the other side of this argument, and see that it has even LESS roleplayers then Minimum, something that never should have attracted roleplayers in the first place.

So, why do we need female Kerbals? Really, why?

I'm even more curious, the developers don't want to make a game you can roleplay, so why should they cater to them?

"Some people agree with my closed-ended viewpoint so it is now validated"



I hate to invoke Godwin's law in such an insignificant discussion, but I'm sure a lot of people agreed with Hitler, too

Not what I said at all, I meant something different.

I meant that people see the side of the discussion that is: Add it if you like, but don't do it to escape controversy.

Which is my point of view on the discussion as well.

Also, I'm gonna say 2 things:

1:To call my view close minded would be to imply your view is either "Open minded" (It's not by nature) or "Progressive" which isn't as good as you'd think it too be.

I fail to see how my view is close minded, I'm not against females in general (I can see why people want more female protagonists, some diversity is good for a gamer so he/she [Both are common] can get some refreshing experience), I'm just against females who exist to either be

A: Controversy repulsion.

B: Progressive/Artsy or against trends (Though I can see why this might be a good thing for some, so this is just my viewpoint really.)

C: Representative for no reason other then to deflect criticism.

D: Other things of the like.

2: Hitler did a lot of things we did/do too, having people agree with him means nothing.

[Endoperez]

'I'm right because someone says I'm right' is a horrible argument.

The post claims

No one benefits (And anyone who "Requires" females needs to get their proiorities checked. I'm sorry but it's kinda true) from this addition a

That is wrong. I have already posted a scientific study about how kids learn better if they can identify with a character (not exact wording). That means there is a benefit. That means that this person who agrees with you is factually wrong.

[EPR89]

So you're back to claiming that Kerbals right now don't look male

You were on to something with this, that coulda actually made a point and made sense. And now you're not.

Well, seeing as how you reacted the last few times this has been brought up by different people when you talked about KSP, I think it's safe to say that this wouldn't have made a point or sense to you.

I mean, to you roleplaying still means playing an RPG. You do't understand that it's an approach to playing games that can apply to any genre and is central to how many people consume games. Multiple people have explained this to you and you still call it things like "unnecessary," stupid," and claim that since it (according to you) is a play style that only affects a minority it shouldn't play any role in the design of games that are not explicitly RPGs.

There is no value in having a debate with you about this. You don't accept views different from your own. Actually, based on how you have reacted in those threads up to now, I'd say that you probably can't even understand views different from your own. You just block them completely.
Talking with you about this stuff is a waste of time.
Plain and simple.

[Phoenixwarrior141]

'I'm right because someone says I'm right' is a horrible argument.

I never tried to say it was, or argue using that point. I said that "This is my point, people agree with it"
Whether it's right or not is subjective and independent of me or any other factors, meaning that I should not claim that it's right or wrong because I'm biased and my subjective opinion is not independent of factors that modify it and dictate what I think.

That is wrong. I have already posted a scientific study about how kids learn better if they can identify with a character (not exact wording). That means there is a benefit. That means that this person who agrees with you is factually wrong.

So they need to have females while they do orbital calculations in their heads to determine how much fuel is needed to get to a planet and back or else they aren't learning anything?

Sure. I'll buy into that.

Well, seeing as how you reacted the last few times this has been brought up by different people when you talked about KSP, I think it's safe to say that this wouldn't have made a point or sense to you.

No it would have:

You could claim that the Kerbals look like the males of their species and not having them in the game implies they are misogynistic and thus it would be worthwhile to add females to avoid running into a wall with impressionable children and avoid the issue further.

Which would also make the "It's corrupting the children" arguments valid and tear my point down to the ground, and I'd understand it.

Take that as you will.

I mean, to you roleplaying still means playing an RPG. You do't understand that it's an approach to playing games that can apply to any genre and is central to how many people consume games.

1: No I don't. I can see people roleplaying Halo for fucks sake. I know roleplaying is not unique to RPGs.

2: Just because people play games to be immersed and roleplay, does not mean that developers develop games to have players roleplay in them.

How can you not see that?

Proof is: Spec Ops, which roleplaying actually detracts from the experience.. The developers never intended to have the players roleplay (Quite the opposite) and thus wanting RPG like choices and immersion is stupid and would actually make the game and it's message worse.

Same with GWBW as a matter of fact.

The developers of KSP did not plan for or account for roleplaying, meaning that wanting things to be immersive is stupid.

Same with Minimum.

Like it or not, developers don't always want or plan for or account for roleplaying. Since they may not want roleplayers to be their target audience.

Multiple people have explained this to you and you still call it things like "unnecessary," stupid,"

Because in some games they are. Not all games by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly some.

...and claim that since it (according to you) is a play style that only affects a minority it shouldn't play any role in the design of games that are not explicitly RPGs.

Yes, in some cases it does affect a minority. KSP is one of those cases.

No, it shouldn't only be exclusive to RPGs. I don't believe that any one genre has qualities exclusive to it and it alone. Genres should be crossed and mismatched, just to see what comes out.

No, developers don't always account for roleplayers and don't always want players to be immersed. That is what I'm trying to say here.

[Endoperez]

Please...

You can't dodge an argument by saying subjective overrides wrong.

Learn better - not 'required to learn anything ever'.