An article from a former sjw woman and a gamer.

[NuclearKangaroo]

if i have a chess set in which all the pieces are sexy women, does that make chess a worse game? does that make that set worse at chess than other sets? would the same apply if the pieces were instead sexy men?

Not intrinsically, but it could do.

I mean, I would consider that chess set to be pandering, tacky, and adding nothing to the actual game, and thus I think it would be quite important for me to know if I was in the market for buying a chess set whether I was going to be embarrassed trying to play with it.

that doesnt make it a worse set of chess, you can still play chess with it perfectly well, if it was a bad set of chess you couldnt do that, atleast not easily

see how your argument falls apart?

And define "sexy men", because that's actually quite a difficult concept to pin down. If we're talking Chippendales, then yes, for much the same reason.

https://www.google.co.ve/search?q=sexy+men&biw=1440&bih=775&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=x7dBVPWLA8-1sQTwgYLoBA&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

i wonder, why didnt you question me talking about "sexy women"?

why are you here then? this nasty site that met gamergate demands, if you only want to hear YOUR side of the story, just go to all the other sides that refuse to let the gamergate side be heard

I don't really care if this site gives you a platform or not. That's their right, just as it's the right of other sites to take away said platform. If you don't like it, set up your own forum, blog or news site.

sure i will, if you first stop complaining about "sexism" in games and make your own games without any sexism

You can say whatever you want, and if anyone is willing to listen to you that's their stupid fault. My only investment here is pointing out that you're being a massive hypocrite and trying to force other people's media consumption to conform to your minority political agenda.

so again, just to be clear, you are saying using your influences to take down a gamign site supporting gamergate is not censorship, neither is hacking, doxxing and DDoSing sites that support gamergate or the discussion of gamergate

noun
1.
defamation; calumny:
rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:
a slander against his good name.
3.
Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander

Defamation
noun
1.
the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another [person], as by slander or libel; calumny:
She sued the magazine for defamation of character.

Calumny

noun, plural calumnies.
1.
a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:
The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.
2.
the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.


sexy queen to sexy rook, checkmate

unless you are going to argue gamergate isnt something

so just because it always has been like that, it has to be like that? i think not

I could say exactly the same thing about the game industry.

yeah because sexy ladies do so much harm, if someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are not sexy, you would have a point

im sorry are you saying that doxxing, hacking and using your influences to blacklist people is "part of everyday, normal interaction"?

Of those three things, only one is even arguably related to "censorship", and it's legal.

"censorship is good as long as its legal"

also i love how you imply harassing and threating people for their opinions cant lead to censorship

and you expect to have a proper discussion when an entire side is being completely ignored

Well, why don't you set up your own site and discuss it there?

i dont know, why dont you make your own games and stop complaining about what everyone else plays

also 8chan

I mean, if game developers don't have to respond to discussions about sexism, why do journalists have to respond to whatever issues you want to discuss? If you think you can provide a better service, maybe you should go and do that.

writers shouldnt listen to their readership, of course, well its THEIR choice, these people are alreayd losing hits and advertisers, they definitively wont last at this rate, but you are right, they dont have to listen to us

when we are accused left and right of being white straight males (as if that was a bad thing somehow), the ability to irrefutably prove them wrong is a great victory, is the one things that has been hurting anti-gg the most, they have no power to shame us based on our race, gender or sexual orientation

Right, but that doesn't change the fact that two of the people you've mentioned have a particular history of pandering or setting themselves up as "native informants" to groups with right-wing, conservative Christian and/or anti-equality agendas.

Having those people on side isn't a great achievement, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate any particular progressive credentials.

im christian, is there a problem with that? i have never judged anybody based on their race or their gender or the fact they are gay/bi

and who CARES if they are from the right, again, is diversity only valid if those people AGREE with you? you call that progressive?

hell i live in a "socialist" country, you cant get any more leftist than that, and let me tell you, this is one of the most ass backwards governments this country has ever had, they have destroyed our economy, our infrastructure, our liberties, our security and the unity of our people, progressive my butt

 

[Guerilla]

This article reminded me of an AMAZING 4chan post I found a couple of years ago from a former SJW on how the whole movement resembles a cult and it becomes toxic for you and the people you love. The interesting part begins from the second paragraph:

or link: http://i.imgur.com/hT9HBKi.jpg

 

[Terminal Blue]

that doesnt make it a worse set of chess, you can still play chess with it perfectly well, if it was a bad set of chess you couldnt do that, atleast not easily

It is a bad chess set for me, because I would not want to play with it.

That is what determines the quality of a game, not some arbitrary random measure of whether it's possible to successfully press buttons or move pieces around, but how fun it is to play. There are many, many criteria on which a game can be fun (or not fun) to play, which is why free and open criticism is important.

ET for the Atari 2600 is not a good game because you can press buttons to make ET move around.

i wonder, why didnt you question me talking about "sexy women"?

Oh.. you meant "underwear model" sexy. Why didn't you just say?

The reason I didn't question "sexy women" is because it's already obvious what you mean.

sure i will, if you first stop complaining about "sexism" in games and make your own games without any sexism

Nope. I'm not the one accusing anyone of censorship because they didn't give me a platform I'm not automatically entitled to have. I mean, you're certainly trying to take away people's platforms to talk about sexism, but you haven't actually managed to do anything so even that doesn't bother me really.

So again, just to be clear, you are saying using your influences to take down a gamign site supporting gamergate is not censorship, neither is hacking, doxxing and DDoSing sites that support gamergate or the discussion of gamergate.

Well, as we've established, it depends on your definition of censorship.

The question you're actually implying here is "is it wrong". Hackng and DDoSing is illegal, and doxxing is potentially illegal depending on context so I don't think there's actually much debate there. Website takedowns are generally legal and may in some cases be legally enforced.

But I don't think any of these things are denials of a person's right to free expression as it exists in law, and therefore I don't think the claim of censorship holds much weight, even if you hold a "subjective" definition of censorship which is broader.

Calumny

noun, plural calumnies.
1.
a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:
The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.
2.
the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.

sexy queen to sexy rook, checkmate

unless you are going to argue gamergate isnt something

Have you already forgotten what we were talking about, because that does not bode well.

"Gamers" are not a thing.

You also haven't even touched on the "false and malicious" bit.

yeah because sexy ladies do so much harm, if someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are not sexy, you would have a point

If someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are sexy, you would have a point.

"censorship is good as long as its legal"

You haven't made any kind of case otherwise.

i dont know, why dont you make your own games and stop complaining about what everyone else plays

Actually, I didn't.

I haven't done so once. But you've assumed that I have.

What am I to take from this? Because what I'm inclined to take is that your victim complex will literally invent attacks where there haven't been any simply to fill in the gaps in your little self-serving narrative that anyone who is remotely skeptical that you have the best interests of game journalism at heart is an evil SJW coming to take your games away.

When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back at you.

writers shouldnt listen to their readership, of course, well its THEIR choice, these people are alreayd losing hits and advertisers, they definitively wont last at this rate, but you are right, they dont have to listen to us

Cool, so you're ready to drop all this silliness about "censorship?"

im christian, is there a problem with that? i have never judged anybody based on their race or their gender or the fact they are gay/bi

Good for you.

It would be nice if the people you hold up to prove how progressive and egalitarian you are could bring themselves do the same.

and who CARES if they are from the right, again, is diversity only valid if those people AGREE with you? you call that progressive?

That depends. Is criticism only justified if people agree with you?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

It is a bad chess set for me, because I would not want to play with it.

i see the problem

opinion != fact

thats YOUR opinion, YOUR feelings mate, not a fact, if i say "i dont like gravity" we dont simply start floating, saying "i dont like this chess set" doesnt make it a worse chess set

That is what determines the quality of a game, not some arbitrary random measure of whether it's possible to successfully press buttons or move pieces around, but how fun it is to play. There are many, many criteria on which a game can be fun (or not fun) to play, which is why free and open criticism is important.

ET for the Atari 2600 is not a good game because you can press buttons to make ET move around.

ok let me continue with the chess analogy

are the rules of chess changed because the pieces are sexy? are the strategies more limited?

i wonder, why didnt you question me talking about "sexy women"?

Oh.. you meant "underwear model" sexy. Why didn't you just say?

The reason I didn't question "sexy women" is because it's already obvious what you mean.

and it wasnt obvious what i mean by sexy men?

you know when you are going to even ignore google search results for "sexy men" maybe you should stop arguing

sure i will, if you first stop complaining about "sexism" in games and make your own games without any sexism

Nope. I'm not the one accusing anyone of censorship because they didn't give me a platform I'm not automatically entitled to have. I mean, you're certainly trying to take away people's platforms to talk about sexism, but you haven't actually managed to do anything so even that doesn't bother me really.

so the good old

"its different when I do it" defense?

you are not automatically entitled to your games not being sexist, in fact developers are free to protray whatever they want in their games, fi yuo dont like it, make yor own games

im not taking anybody's platform to talk about anything, im only asking for both points to be heard, if you think my arguments stop people from talking about sexism in games, if you think your argument of sexism in games cant stand even the slighhtest level of scrutiny, maybe its not a good argument

So again, just to be clear, you are saying using your influences to take down a gamign site supporting gamergate is not censorship, neither is hacking, doxxing and DDoSing sites that support gamergate or the discussion of gamergate.

Well, as we've established, it depends on your definition of censorship.

The question you're actually implying here is "is it wrong". Hackng and DDoSing is illegal, and doxxing is potentially illegal depending on context so I don't think there's actually much debate there. Website takedowns are generally legal and may in some cases be legally enforced.

But I don't think any of these things are denials of a person's right to free expression as it exists in law, and therefore I don't think the claim of censorship holds much weight, even if you hold a "subjective" definition of censorship which is broader.

you mean THE definition of censorship, which, again, is defined as follows

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

you know it kind of reminds of what happened in my country a few years back

one of the mayor, anti-government TV channels was denied its permission to keep broadcasting, it wasnt anything illegal, the state is entitled to give these permissions or not, technically what they did wasnt illegal, but regardless, the end result was censorship, we lost part of our ability to hear opposing points of view, all the other TV channels opposing the government changed their stance out of fear of having their permissions revoked

and last year, the last remaining mayor anti-government TV channel (which was a cable television network and therefore couldnt have its permission revoked by the government) had most of its assets bought by the government after years of harassment campaigns, we have now lost all spaces for dissenting opinions on TV, most people here have no internet, so they cant hear opposing opinions from there either, and thanks to a shortage of paper (among countless other things) newspapers are also on the verge of extintion

nothing illegal, but are you going to argue none of this is censorship?

Calumny

noun, plural calumnies.
1.
a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:
The speech was considered a calumny of the administration.
2.
the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.

sexy queen to sexy rook, checkmate

unless you are going to argue gamergate isnt something

Have you already forgotten what we were talking about, because that does not bode well.

"Gamers" are not a thing.

You also haven't even touched on the "false and malicious" bit.

"gamers is not a thing" haha ok

gamers is an identity and therefore a thing

yeah because sexy ladies do so much harm, if someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are not sexy, you would have a point

If someone was STOPPING people from making games with ladies that are sexy, you would have a point.

i have a point then

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

"censorship is good as long as its legal"

You haven't made any kind of case otherwise.

i just did

i dont know, why dont you make your own games and stop complaining about what everyone else plays

Actually, I didn't.

I haven't done so once. But you've assumed that I have.

What am I to take from this? Because what I'm inclined to take is that your victim complex will literally invent attacks where there haven't been any simply to fill in the gaps in your little self-serving narrative that anyone who is remotely skeptical that you have the best interests of game journalism at heart is an evil SJW coming to take your games away.

When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes back at you.

you just defended numerous times scoring a game lower because it has sexy women

writers shouldnt listen to their readership, of course, well its THEIR choice, these people are alreayd losing hits and advertisers, they definitively wont last at this rate, but you are right, they dont have to listen to us

Cool, so you're ready to drop all this silliness about "censorship?"

oh so now you are arguing that readers should keep reading and supporting sites that we dont like just becuase that is the only kind of censorship you will attack?

sorry but pal, this is capitalism, if your customers dont want it, they wont buy it, if you are a writer, insulting your readers, the people that CONSUME your content wont get you far

im christian, is there a problem with that? i have never judged anybody based on their race or their gender or the fact they are gay/bi

Good for you.

It would be nice if the people you hold up to prove how progressive and egalitarian you are could bring themselves do the same.

oh so having people of all races, religions, from the left and from the right, genders and sexuality doesnt count?

and who CARES if they are from the right, again, is diversity only valid if those people AGREE with you? you call that progressive?

That depends. Is criticism only justified if people agree with you?

no, criticism is only valid when it makes sense, being from the right doesnt turn you into a blabbering idiot

being from the left or the right doesnt make you are more or less gay, woman, non-white, therefore attacking the diversity of this movement based on the political view of SOME people inside of it is ridiculous and actually quite intolerant

 

[Terminal Blue]

thats YOUR opinion, YOUR feelings mate, not a fact, if i say "i dont like gravity" we dont simply start floating, saying "i dont like this chess set" doesnt make it a worse chess set

This assumes that the purpose of the chess set is something other than to be enjoyed.

are the rules of chess changed because the pieces are sexy? are the strategies more limited?

Why does that even matter?

Maybe you think that's the only thing that's important, but that is YOUR opinion. The entire value of a chess set is entirely subjective because it is based on the ability to provoke a subjective experience, that of having fun or being entertained. If you think it isn't, if you think that the criteria upon which you value things are more factual than that of everyone else, then I am absolutely shocked you have the balls to try and lecture anyone about fact and opinion because you clearly understand neither.

you know when you are going to even ignore google search results for "sexy men" maybe you should stop arguing

Why?

Heck, do a web search and browse through some aggregators and surveys, you'll already get very different results.

What you're doing now is choosing the terms in which you get to validate your opinion as "fact" and then proclaiming it to be fact, which once again shows zero understanding of how opinion works.

you are not automatically entitled to your games not being sexist

True. But I am entitled to argue that they shouldn't be, contingent on the people whose platform I'm using don't object to me doing so.

There is absolutely no difference between you wanting to "change" reviews and me wanting to "change" games. Absolutely no difference. The difference between us is that I don't seem to be labouring under the delusion that adhering to my opinion somehow constitutes good practice or a requirement of professionalism.

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."

If that's the definition of censorship, then bring a suit to bear. Even if you can't, you'd think some GG Americans would have invoked the first amendment. Or some Europeans might have called in the ECHR.

Oh wait, they can't, because this isn't covered by any legally enforceable guarantee of free speech.

gamers is an identity and therefore a thing

"Muslim" is also an identity, and yet criticism of Islam is still protected speech.

"Ahmed, the Muslim, beats his wife!" - Slander (provided the accusation is malicious and untrue)
"Muslims beat their wives" - Protected
"Bob, the gamer, is an evil rapist!" - Slander (provided the accusation is malicious and untrue)
"Gamers are dead" - protected

i have a point then

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

Recieving negative feedback =/= being forced to compromise your artistic vision.

Sadly, if you work for a company, the company gets to make decisions for you. You seem to have a hard time grasping this. It seems difficult for you to accept that artists don't get to live in some crazy whacked out space bubble where no outside influence can ever touch the absolute purity of their inner thoughts, but this is real life and in real life gaming is an industry, and in real life controversy is bad for an industry.

I mean, why do you think Mercedes withdrew its advertising support of Gawker media? It's because Gamergate generated controversy that they were afraid to be associated with. Does that mean you're censoring media? Does that mean you're forcing people to compromise their artistic vision?

No. It's just how the world works, and you clearly have no problem with it when it works in your favour.

you just defended numerous times scoring a game lower because it has sexy women

Yes. If that's what the reviewer wants to do and if their employers are okay with them doing so.

What use are your "ethics in video game journalism" if they don't include journalistic freedom?

oh so now you are arguing that readers should keep reading and supporting sites that we dont like just becuase that is the only kind of censorship you will attack?

No. I think if you don't like these sites you should either.

a) Work to change them.

or

b) Ignore them.


But if you choose option a) then I also think you need to follow through on that and accept that people can also work towards change in the games industry in whatever way they see fit.

oh so having people of all races, religions, from the left and from the right, genders and sexuality doesnt count?

What exactly do you think that proves?

If those people themselves oppose diversity (because they're hypocrites, opportunists or cowards) then does having them on side signal any great commitment to diversity?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

thats YOUR opinion, YOUR feelings mate, not a fact, if i say "i dont like gravity" we dont simply start floating, saying "i dont like this chess set" doesnt make it a worse chess set

This assumes that the purpose of the chess set is something other than to be enjoyed.

are the rules of chess changed because the pieces are sexy? are the strategies more limited?

Why does that even matter?

Maybe you think that's the only thing that's important, but that is YOUR opinion. The entire value of a chess set is entirely subjective because it is based on the ability to provoke a subjective experience, that of having fun or being entertained. If you think it isn't, if you think that the criteria upon which you value things are more factual than that of everyone else, then I am absolutely shocked you have the balls to try and lecture anyone about fact and opinion because you clearly understand neither.

"lets judge a game based on the completely interchangeable character models instead of the gameplay"

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

make an editorial, saying you didnt like bayonettas design, put a comment in your review "some readers might find the design of the main character unappealing"

but dont agre bayonetta is a worse game because it has a sexy MC, is no different from critizing a game for being violent, for having an anime artstyle, for using the color yellow, is it not different from arguing our hypothetical set of chess is a worse set of chess for having sexy pieces

you have yet to refute my chess argument with something besides "my feelings"

you know when you are going to even ignore google search results for "sexy men" maybe you should stop arguing

Why?

Heck, do a web search and browse through some aggregators and surveys, you'll already get very different results.

What you're doing now is choosing the terms in which you get to validate your opinion as "fact" and then proclaiming it to be fact, which once again shows zero understanding of how opinion works.

-use things completely proven to be facts to support my argument
-that means my argument is wrong

sure buddy

you are not automatically entitled to your games not being sexist

True. But I am entitled to argue that they shouldn't be, contingent on the people whose platform I'm using don't object to me doing so.

-game devs are entitled to be free
-im entitled to say they shouldnt be free

There is absolutely no difference between you wanting to "change" reviews and me wanting to "change" games. Absolutely no difference. The difference between us is that I don't seem to be labouring under the delusion that adhering to my opinion somehow constitutes good practice or a requirement of professionalism.

of course asking for proper and FAIR reviews, as well as asking for the end of corruption and cronyism among game journalists is the exact same thing as asking devs to not be so damn free and appeal to my feelings

"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other such entities."

If that's the definition of censorship, then bring a suit to bear. Even if you can't, you'd think some GG Americans would have invoked the first amendment. Or some Europeans might have called in the ECHR.

Oh wait, they can't, because this isn't covered by any legally enforceable guarantee of free speech.

back to the "censorship is ok as long as its legal" argument i see

did you know in countries like north korean censorship IS legal, or rather the freedom of freespeech take a backseat to "defending the revolution", thats a thing

i already proved this idea of "censorship is ok as long as its legal" is bullshit with my country

gamers is an identity and therefore a thing

"Muslim" is also an identity, and yet criticism of Islam is still protected speech.

"Ahmed, the Muslim, beats his wife!" - Slander (provided the accusation is malicious and untrue)
"Muslims beat their wives" - Protected
"Bob, the gamer, is an evil rapist!" - Slander (provided the accusation is malicious and untrue)
"Gamers are dead" - protected

"Blacks are a bunch of thiefs"
"Jews are greedy and cant be trusted"

you are completely obssesed with the idea that just because something is legal, is fair, or morally correct, when history has proven us time and time again this to be absolutely garbage, we are not discussing whenever something is legal or not, tough we do know many of the things done by both sides arent, we are discussing the morality of these actions, but by all means, if you think silencing dissenting voices is perfectly fine go ahead, say it

i have a point then

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

Recieving negative feedback =/= being forced to compromise your artistic vision.

Sadly, if you work for a company, the company gets to make decisions for you. You seem to have a hard time grasping this. It seems difficult for you to accept that artists don't get to live in some crazy whacked out space bubble where no outside influence can ever touch the absolute purity of their inner thoughts, but this is real life and in real life gaming is an industry, and in real life controversy is bad for an industry.

I mean, why do you think Mercedes withdrew its advertising support of Gawker media? It's because Gamergate generated controversy that they were afraid to be associated with. Does that mean you're censoring media? Does that mean you're forcing people to compromise their artistic vision?

No. It's just how the world works, and you clearly have no problem with it when it works in your favour.

shamed and insulted to the point of self-censorship = being forced to compromise your artistic vision.

while do might have a point with your mercedes example, lets look at the "crimes" of each party, the artist of D:OS drew a woman with an iron bikini, gawker practices double standards, slander and croyism

you just defended numerous times scoring a game lower because it has sexy women

Yes. If that's what the reviewer wants to do and if their employers are okay with them doing so.

What use are your "ethics in video game journalism" if they don't include journalistic freedom?

"im free to provide inaccurate information and have conflicts of interests"

no, you cant do that, atleast not while calling yourself a journalists, if you want you can stop calling yourself a journalist and enjoy regular freedom to do all these things

oh so now you are arguing that readers should keep reading and supporting sites that we dont like just becuase that is the only kind of censorship you will attack?

No. I think if you don't like these sites you should either.

a) Work to change them.

or

b) Ignore them.


But if you choose option a) then I also think you need to follow through on that and accept that people can also work towards change in the games industry in whatever way they see fit.

that doesnt mean their changes are right, the changes GG asks of journalists are 100% justified, because all we are asking is journalistic integrity

look at the escapist, the site doesnt pander to either gg or anti-gg, and as such its not targetted by gg, balanced reporting

oh so having people of all races, religions, from the left and from the right, genders and sexuality doesnt count?

What exactly do you think that proves?

If those people themselves oppose diversity (because they're hypocrites, opportunists or cowards) then does having them on side signal any great commitment to diversity?

are you aware what you are saying is completely insane

it would be like me saying "im not nuclear kangaroo", i AM nuclear kangaroo, the fact i exist is proof of that, how can you have a group of diverse people, from all sorts of background and argue they are not diverse because of what they say?

also please go ahead and prove i am a hypocrite, opportunist and/or coward non-white, because otherwise it would prove not all people from gg are like that, and that we are diverse

 

[Silvanus]

"lets judge a game based on the completely interchangeable character models instead of the gameplay"

If they were so freely interchangeable, it's odd how so many of them revert to type...

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

make an editorial, saying you didnt like bayonettas design, put a comment in your review "some readers might find the design of the main character unappealing"

but dont agre bayonetta is a worse game because it has a sexy MC, is no different from critizing a game for being violent, for having an anime artstyle, for using the color yellow, is it not different from arguing our hypothetical set of chess is a worse set of chess for having sexy pieces

you have yet to refute my chess argument with something besides "my feelings"

Who has decided that only the mechanics of the game are valid targets of criticism? That is merely your opinion on the matter. Other people have different priorities.

A great many people play games for the narratives, the stories, the characters.

The chess analogy assumes that chess and video games have precisely the same purpose. In one regard, they do; they are both activities, they are both for fun. The style is superficial in chess.

But video games are often more than just a puzzle. They have narratives; they tell stories; they are an artistic medium. On that basis, we could just as validly compare them to films. A film reviewer is expected to critique the narrative, the characterisation, the style. A book reviewer, too. They are regarded as integral to the experience-- just they are in video games, for a great many people.

If you regard the mechanics as the sole important aspect, that's fine. I do not. And there's no reason for your priorities to be more important than mine.

 

[Guerilla]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

make an editorial, saying you didnt like bayonettas design, put a comment in your review "some readers might find the design of the main character unappealing"

That is an excellent comparison. If every genius wanted to to put their own fears and politics in reviews nothing would make any fucking sense and reviews would have died long ago. Imagine conservatives just like feminists whining about revealing clothes and "foul" language while at the same time praising guns, liberals whining about the gun culture in games, PETA fans saying that riding a horse and eating meat in games is animal abuse, and people afraid of spiders criticizing a game because it has spiders.

But people (except SJWs who are a "special" case) are smarter than that. They know that the review is about the game, not them and their politics, they know that by lecturing people who are only interested in the review of the game they will only annoy them and that there's a time and a place to share their beliefs and it certainly isn't there.

Like I said though SJWs are like a cult, they MUST have approved movies, games, books, way of speaking and everything outside that little bubble is shunned and confronted with slandering and unfounded accusations.

 

[Erttheking]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

 

[Guerilla]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

So you're dismissing his comparison by making a terrible strawman. Good job. In case you didn't know many people are really terrified of spiders. Someone could go on a rant in a review explaining why they're horrible creatures and why creators shouldn't add them to their games since there's a legitimate psychological condition called arachnophobia. [SJW mode on]Way to dismiss people's feelings and fears, how inconsiderate of you.[SJW mode off]

Furthermore, the word triggered has been so abused by feminists the last few years that literally ANYTHING [http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=33x7hnd&s=8] can be considered a trigger or PTSD.

 

[Erttheking]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

So you're dismissing his comparison by making a terrible strawman. Good job. In case you didn't know many people are really terrified of spiders. Someone could go on a rant in a review explaining why they're horrible creatures and why creators shouldn't add them to their games since there's a legitimate psychological condition called arachnophobia. [SJW mode on]Way to dismiss people's feelings and fears, how inconsiderate of you.[SJW mode off]

Furthermore, the word triggered has been so abused by feminists the last few years that literally ANYTHING [http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=33x7hnd&s=8] can be considered a trigger or PTSD.

You accuse me of using a strawman and then go on to use a strawman yourself. Really? Really? If you're going to counter my argument, don't concoct an over the top story and pretend it can compare to what's actually going on in the real world.

Don't talk about how words have been abused and then unironically talk about SJWs. Your arguments are loaded with hypocrisy.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

"lets judge a game based on the completely interchangeable character models instead of the gameplay"

If they were so freely interchangeable, it's odd how so many of them revert to type...

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

make an editorial, saying you didnt like bayonettas design, put a comment in your review "some readers might find the design of the main character unappealing"

but dont agre bayonetta is a worse game because it has a sexy MC, is no different from critizing a game for being violent, for having an anime artstyle, for using the color yellow, is it not different from arguing our hypothetical set of chess is a worse set of chess for having sexy pieces

you have yet to refute my chess argument with something besides "my feelings"

Who has decided that only the mechanics of the game are valid targets of criticism? That is merely your opinion on the matter. Other people have different priorities.

A great many people play games for the narratives, the stories, the characters.

The chess analogy assumes that chess and video games have precisely the same purpose. In one regard, they do; they are both activities, they are both for fun. The style is superficial in chess.

But video games are often more than just a puzzle. They have narratives; they tell stories; they are an artistic medium. On that basis, we could just as validly compare them to films. A film reviewer is expected to critique the narrative, the characterisation, the style. A book reviewer, too. They are regarded as integral to the experience-- just they are in video games, for a great many people.

If you regard the mechanics as the sole important aspect, that's fine. I do not. And there's no reason for your priorities to be more important than mine.

look man, im not agaisnt devs making sexy women characters, im not agaisnt devs making ugly women character, animals, robots, etc, whatever they want, im agaisnt them being forced into a certain mindset, im agaisnt them being shamed for their designs

id be just as pissed if someone had criticed Persona 4 for having "******" characters, maybe even more because i havent played bayonetta but i did play persona

and im not agaisnt critizing narratives in games, im against people considering a GAME worse, not for its gameplay, not for its story, not for length, but because of the shape of the polygons of the main character

if anything critizing a game for having a "cliche" sexy female main character would be perfectly acceptable in my book, but bayonetta is not cliche

 

[Guerilla]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

So you're dismissing his comparison by making a terrible strawman. Good job. In case you didn't know many people are really terrified of spiders. Someone could go on a rant in a review explaining why they're horrible creatures and why creators shouldn't add them to their games since there's a legitimate psychological condition called arachnophobia. [SJW mode on]Way to dismiss people's feelings and fears, how inconsiderate of you.[SJW mode off]

Furthermore, the word triggered has been so abused by feminists the last few years that literally ANYTHING [http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=33x7hnd&s=8] can be considered a trigger or PTSD.

You accuse me of using a strawman and then go on to use a strawman yourself. Really? Really? If you're going to counter my argument, don't concoct an over the top story and pretend it can compare to what's actually going on in the real world.

Don't talk about how words have been abused and then unironically talk about SJWs. Your arguments are loaded with hypocrisy.

This post has literally no content. You didn't explain why it's a strawman and just assumed that talking about SJWs somehow make my arguments moot. What a terrible non-reply.

 

[Erttheking]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

So you're dismissing his comparison by making a terrible strawman. Good job. In case you didn't know many people are really terrified of spiders. Someone could go on a rant in a review explaining why they're horrible creatures and why creators shouldn't add them to their games since there's a legitimate psychological condition called arachnophobia. [SJW mode on]Way to dismiss people's feelings and fears, how inconsiderate of you.[SJW mode off]

Furthermore, the word triggered has been so abused by feminists the last few years that literally ANYTHING [http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=33x7hnd&s=8] can be considered a trigger or PTSD.

You accuse me of using a strawman and then go on to use a strawman yourself. Really? Really? If you're going to counter my argument, don't concoct an over the top story and pretend it can compare to what's actually going on in the real world.

Don't talk about how words have been abused and then unironically talk about SJWs. Your arguments are loaded with hypocrisy.

This post has literally no content. You didn't explain why it's a strawman and just assumed that talking about SJWs somehow make my arguments moot. What a terrible non-reply.

Oh well guess what? You didn't explain how my post was a strawman. And you argued like talking about triggers somehow made my point moot. So I've officially done nothing other than what you've done.

Right back at you buddy. Right back at you. Because do be utterly frank your reply was just rambling on about a bizare never gonna happen situation and arguing that trigger had lost meaning because "SJWs" or something. Trust me. I'm not gonna be losing sleep over you calling my replies a non reply. Because if you're going to call someone out for something, you should try and have the moral high ground first.

 

[Guerilla]

Oh well guess what? You didn't explain how my post was a strawman. And you argued like talking about triggers somehow made my point moot. So I've officially done nothing other than what you've done.

Right back at you buddy. Right back at you. Because do be utterly frank your reply was just rambling on about a bizare never gonna happen situation and arguing that trigger had lost meaning because "SJWs" or something. Trust me. I'm not gonna be losing sleep over you calling my replies a non reply. Because if you're going to call someone out for something, you should try and have the moral high ground first.

erttheking dismissing argument by making a lazy strawman:

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10"

Is this clear enough for you now?

You're also assuming that only you know what triggered means even though the same movement that is using the word has made a mockery of it by spamming it about everything. We know what triggered means. It's a meaningless term that is spammed by SJWs when they want to censor people.

Scientifically the term is a joke since studies have concluded that in order for people to get over their PTSDs they should actually face their fears instead of avoiding them.

 

[Erttheking]

Oh well guess what? You didn't explain how my post was a strawman. And you argued like talking about triggers somehow made my point moot. So I've officially done nothing other than what you've done.

Right back at you buddy. Right back at you. Because do be utterly frank your reply was just rambling on about a bizare never gonna happen situation and arguing that trigger had lost meaning because "SJWs" or something. Trust me. I'm not gonna be losing sleep over you calling my replies a non reply. Because if you're going to call someone out for something, you should try and have the moral high ground first.

erttheking dismissing argument by making a lazy strawman:

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10"

Is this clear enough for you now?

You're also assuming that only you know what triggered means even though the same movement that is using the word has made a mockery of it by spamming it about everything. We know what triggered means. It's a meaningless term that is spammed by SJWs when they want to censor people.

Scientifically the term is a joke since studies have concluded that in order for people to get over their PTSD they should actually face their fears instead of avoiding them.

Yeah, it's clear that this argument has devolved into arguing over semantics. It's over. Don't bother replying to me anymore, you won't get anything in return. I'm going to be waiting patiently until I can talk to the person I quoted.

 

[Silvanus]

look man, im not agaisnt devs making sexy women characters, im not agaisnt devs making ugly women character, animals, robots, etc, whatever they want, im agaisnt them being forced into a certain mindset, im agaisnt them being shamed for their designs

Certainly! Me too. I'm against them being forced to do anything; I'm against shaming developers, too. Criticism is not the same thing.

id be just as pissed if someone had criticed Persona 4 for having "******" characters, maybe even more because i havent played bayonetta but i did play persona

and im not agaisnt critizing narratives in games, im against people considering a GAME worse, not for its gameplay, not for its story, not for length, but because of the shape of the polygons of the main character

if anything critizing a game for having a "cliche" sexy female main character would be perfectly acceptable in my book, but bayonetta is not cliche

I would tend to agree about Bayonetta, though my experience of the series is very limited. My argument was solely that characters and narrative are perfectly valid avenues of criticism, since they make up a great part of a video game, and are rather fundamental to the enjoyment of games for some people. Criticism need not be limited to mechanics or gameplay.

 

[Terminal Blue]

"lets judge a game based on the completely interchangeable character models instead of the gameplay"

Where are you getting the "instead" from.

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

No. Not if you explained why you were doing that and didn't outright lie about features of the game.

I'd say you think very little of gamers as consumers if you assume that they are incapable of making up their own mind without simply absorbing a reviewer's/critics opinions. A review/critique is always an opinion, noone in their right mind reads it as anything but.

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

You know.. when you misuse the word "triggered" in order to insult someone for being easily offended, you are taking the piss out of people with PTSD.

Triggers are, contrary to popular opinion, not something which people on tumblr made up.

you have yet to refute my chess argument with something besides "my feelings"

There is nothing to refute.

You don't have the right to demand that people stop talking when you don't agree with them. You may think you do, but you don't. Your argument is your feelings, and I owe your feelings nothing. No explanation, no refutation, nothing. Deal with it.

..is how you respond to "censorship".

-use things completely proven to be facts to support my argument
-that means my argument is wrong

sure buddy

What exactly do you think has been "proven" to be fact?

Because your opinions certainly haven't.

-game devs are entitled to be free
-im entitled to say they shouldnt be free

Exactly.

Welcome to freedom of expression.

of course asking for proper and FAIR reviews

I.e. reviews which conform to your opinion that various things you aren't interested in aren't important and people who think they are are, and I quote, "massive wusses".

Do you honestly actually believe that when you say something, it's factually true because you said it?

back to the "censorship is ok as long as its legal" argument i see

You still haven't actually argued against that argument.

How would you judge when censorship is not okay?

did you know in countries like north korean censorship IS legal, or rather the freedom of freespeech take a backseat to "defending the revolution", thats a thing

Right, but if people in North Korea were able to advocate for legal rights (which they are not), they would - one hopes, if they wished to succeed - do so based on some established (or at worst, theoretical) legal model which would have to at least be coherent, because that's how you win arguments. You don't win arguments by randomly proclaiming that you have the right to eat free hamburgers whenever you want a hamburger.

I was involved in campaign for gay marriage here in the UK, and you know what, the other side (including your wonderful, progressive friend Milo) argued that giving gay people equal rights was itself an attack on the human rights of heterosexuals and the religious. They lost, despite arguing from a position of the legal status quo, because our argument was more coherent.

What you seem to want is the right to make other people, people who pay to put sites online, allow you access to those sites simply because. That is not a coherent right. The internet is not a state-funded platform for public speech.

"Blacks are a bunch of thiefs"
"Jews are greedy and cant be trusted"

Still not slander.

Depending on the specific legal situation, they may constitute hatespeech.

we are not discussing whenever something is legal or not, tough we do know many of the things done by both sides arent, we are discussing the morality of these actions

Ah! Great!

We finally got there!

So, how is your sense of "morality" anything more than your opinion, and why should I have to take it seriously?

"im free to provide inaccurate information and have conflicts of interests"

"I'm free to tell everyone what 'accurate information' is and if they disagree they're objectively wrong because my opinions are facts."

that doesnt mean their changes are right, the changes GG asks of journalists are 100% justified, because all we are asking is journalistic integrity

Right, just like the changes the "SJWs" are asking of the game industry are 100% justified, because all they are asking is an end to sexism.

Rhetoric hides a multitude of sins.

it would be like me saying "im not nuclear kangaroo", i AM nuclear kangaroo, the fact i exist is proof of that, how can you have a group of diverse people, from all sorts of background and argue they are not diverse because of what they say?

Because what they're saying isn't particularly diverse, nor is it particularly friendly to the concept of diversity itself.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

look man, im not agaisnt devs making sexy women characters, im not agaisnt devs making ugly women character, animals, robots, etc, whatever they want, im agaisnt them being forced into a certain mindset, im agaisnt them being shamed for their designs

Certainly! Me too. I'm against them being forced to do anything; I'm against shaming developers, too. Criticism is not the same thing.

id be just as pissed if someone had criticed Persona 4 for having "******" characters, maybe even more because i havent played bayonetta but i did play persona

and im not agaisnt critizing narratives in games, im against people considering a GAME worse, not for its gameplay, not for its story, not for length, but because of the shape of the polygons of the main character

if anything critizing a game for having a "cliche" sexy female main character would be perfectly acceptable in my book, but bayonetta is not cliche

I would tend to agree about Bayonetta, though my experience of the series is very limited. My argument was solely that characters and narrative are perfectly valid avenues of criticism, since they make up a great part of a video game, and are rather fundamental to the enjoyment of games for some people. Criticism need not be limited to mechanics or gameplay.

dude we had this conversation already

look i respect you, and i can see you are a sensible man and stuff, but our point of discrepancy can be boiled down to you think perceived sexism in character design is valid criticism, i think not

we have our stances on the matter and i dont think thats going to change any time soon


i do like so see characters being critized as well, but not on whenever or not the reviewer thinks is sexist or not, neither i want them to argue the game is worse because of it

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

heres the thing, if i was a writer and i was absolutely scared of spiders, and i gave legend of grimrock a bad review for that reason alone, wouldnt i be giving an inaccurate representation of the game's quality to my readers?

if you are a writter by al means get triggered by boobs and keep being a giantic wuss, but dont argue a game is worse because of YOUR personal feelings, fear or political views

Uh...no. Because really what are people going to do. "Had spiders, I don't like spiders 2/10" Because frankly you're blowing things out of proportion (The completely inaccurate review that isn't conveying the quality of Bayonetta 2? 7.5. Really? That's it? That's what people are freaking out about?) as seen in your very next sentence where you completely demean and belittle anyone who disagrees with you. Come on man! You're better than that.

Also I don't think you know what triggered means. Triggered basically means experiencing a PTSD flashback.

it wasnt my intention to belittle EVERYONE, sorry for that, but it just pisses me off to see someone whose job is supposed to be inform the customer about the quality of a product and instead use this product as a soapbox

if you want to analize games on whatever political point of view you want, there are ways to do it that dont involve reviews, hell if they were better made and more open to criticism, id say videos similar to anita's would be a way, or editorials, etc. hell for all the bullshit anita has said atleast ive heard her recognize we can enjoy games despite this perceived sexism, and here comes polygon and says, no the game is less good because of sexism, literally their metacritic quote goes as follows:

"I won't guess why the blatant over-sexualization is still there, often more intensely than before. But it causes an otherwise great game to require a much bigger mental compromise to enjoy."

so the game is not great because it doesnt convey the message you want? these kind of reviews dont help anybody, is not fair to the artist and its creation, and it can misinform customers

ive seen the word triggered being reduced to almost nothing by certain people who thing everything is a trigger i was making fun of that people

the issue with the bayonetta 2 review is that is both, one of the lowest scores the game has got and not the first time polygon does something like this