Father Time said:
axlryder said:
I can appreciate the outcry at the mysoginystic nature of this blatantly pandering yet apparently misguided change in direction for Kratos; however, in the dev's defense, violence against woman in real life is a real problem.
So is violence against men. That's why you had people complaining about GTA,
Obviously, did you not see me point that out that violence against men is a problem later down in my post? That wasn't the point.
Father Time said:
axlryder said:
as they're not trying to pacify just the people who are looking at this from our perspective. They're trying to pacify the people who look at violence against woman and say "THAT'S WRONG!", as I imagine those are the people with the biggest megaphones and may have some brutal real world experience with the issue.
Then they would be cowards. Also we don't know what their reasons are.
you're right, we don't know what their reasons are, I'm just speculating like everyone else in this thread and giving them the benefit of the doubt in regards to that speculation. I also disagree that they'd be cowards unless they actually feel that equal opportunity violence is a necessary part of this game.
Father Time said:
axlryder said:
I'm not saying they're doing the right thing here, but I don't think what they're doing is really deserving of all that much criticism.
I do. Out of all the people who would ***** about violence against women, most of them are probably upset about GOW's level of brutality with or without women. And the remaining? They don't need to care about them. All the naysayer can do is make noise.
As Frank Zappa once said "Ladies, please be advised: The $8.98 purchase price [of a cassette] does not entitle you to a kiss on the foot from the composer or performer in exchange for a spin on the family Victrola."
I don't know if the "naysayers" are really as small a demographic as you make them out to be. That in and of itself is speculation, I'd imagine. What's more, while your quote is a nice sentiment, I imagine sometimes it's just not worth the headache. Obviously that's operating under the assumption that they're taking those naysayers into account.
Father Time said:
axlryder said:
They just don't want to be perceived as beating on woman, because even if they say "no, woman can take care of themselves just as well as men", they'll still, ironically, get called misogynistic and such.
These are the people who either don't know what the word means, have perceived fairness to mean anything that benefits women, or they're the type of people who could find misogyny in an empty room.
There's a reason why I threw the word "ironically" in there, as it would be ironic for someone to use the word in an opposite manner than what would be appropriate. Thus they're using it incorrectly. Thus they obviously don't really know what it means or how to apply it. Another needless clarification.
Father Time said:
I know they didn't say they were catering to them, but if they are then they're cowards or they never really had that much artistic stake in Kratos.
Catering or not, the change does make sense for a younger version of the character, especially if it takes place back in day when woman generally didn't fight in wars and
were viewed as beings to be protected. Even Spartans didn't send their woman off to war. So no, I don't think they'd be completely destroying the character for the sake of appealing to dissent. It's possible they're doing it for artistic AND PR reasons or they don't have a problem either way. If this was GOW4 I'd call BS, but as a prequel it kind of makes sense. I still don't think they should have announced it and singled out woman specifically, but I can still see where they're coming form. I'll honestly be disappointed if there are no female enemies though.
