Jimquisition: Gamer Entitlement

[ShakerSilver]

Why is it that when ME3 is brought up that anyone who criticizes it is dismissed as someone who "just didn't like ending"? Why doesn't anyone acknowledge the fact that the game is a shallow and uninteresting mess with cardboard cut-out crew members and piss-poor RPG elements? It's like when people complained about DmC being more shallow and boring compared to previous DMC games they were all dismissed for simply being upset with New Dante's hair.

 

[Blachman201_v1legacy]

Why is it that when ME3 is brought up that anyone who criticizes it is dismissed as someone who "just didn't like ending"? Why doesn't anyone acknowledge the fact that the game is a shallow and uninteresting mess with cardboard cut-out crew members and piss-poor RPG elements? It's like when people complained about DmC being more shallow and boring compared to previous DMC games they were all dismissed for simply being upset with New Dante's hair.

There is also the fact that ME3 is decisively more technically broken in quite a few areas and downright half-arsed in others when compared to ME1 and 2. Like the broken quest journal, the auto-dialogue, and the numerous graphical glitches for instance.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Why would I want to excuse anyone?

To lend weight to your incorrect argument that you haven't seen anyone attacking her, and have only seen rational critiques. That is what you originally argued, and you applied no qualifiers as to who those people might be, until after the fact.

.. it's more like the opinions of people who write on forums anonymously didn't factor in what I said originally, whether they are the picture of inclusion or the rantings of a cave dweller. I'm talking about people who have a public persona of some sort and create content as a response to her.

So, why would you restrict your comments to those people? Jim wasn't restricting the discussion to those people, nor was anybody else.

As a matter of fact, people with public voices have attacked her. For example, right here on The Escapist, "No Right Answer" did a pretty nasty smear on her in a public video.

I have watched several video responses, and none of them are angry or misogynistic.

I've seen a montage of YouTube responses featuring dozens of video responses aggressively attacking her. Anyway, why do video responbses count for more than comments on forums? It's just the same thing in video form.

The problem is that, since everyone keeps characterizing her critics as angry misogynists, they will always be seen in that light, even when they aren't.

But many of them are. Why would you deny that fact?

We'd let a valid discussion fall by the wayside because of forum trolls.

I don't think many of her critics want a valid discussion. I doubt that if the Sarkeesian controversy wasn't involved, the same people who critique her would be discussing gender in gaming at all.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And again if she was not blaming gamers, specifically male gamers the issue is non existent thus she has no valid ground to stand on in which to criticize. In the same essence of Jack Thompson. Literally you have to blame gamers or there is literally no need to criticize period. Gamers are literally the only people period who could have any blame.

What are you talking about? Why do you have to blame gamers for the "tropes versus women" idea to stand up? You can blame the game industry, you can blame social mores and gendered indoctrination of children in society, you can blame broader media trends. Can you please point out where she said that all male gamers are to blame?

Also, the comparison to Jack Thompson is ridiculous, because Sarkeesian is not trying to ban videogames, or have legislation passed to restrict the content of videogames. She's just commenting on the sociological and cultural dynamics as contained within videogames as texts.

You are reading way too much into it if you see it as seeking to "blame gamers" or something.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

And you're wrong.

So, you're saying that all of the people you're talking about who posted critical video responses to Sarkeesian had a previous history of publicly discussing gender in gaming?

... except to say that just disagreeing with Anita does not make you a misogynist or a sexist.

And I never claimed it did. That's a straw man.

Additionally, whatever you think about what I meant or didn't mean matters very little. Even if she has been openly attacked by actual misogynists, it doesn't change what I was saying. I was referring to youtube video responses. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by applying that criteria to everyone in the world, but it's really secondary to the point, which is that there is a lot of valid criticism that Jim and others are classing as misogynist.

So, do you have examples of such valid criticisms that Jim is classing as misogynist but isn't?

My point was a simple response to what you wrote which was that you hadn't seen Anita being attacked. When you clearly have. Nobody said that all the critics are misogynist. But you appeared to be denying that any are.

 

[darthzew]

Jim,

I'm making a statement directly to you as a bit of an open letter sort of thing. I want everyone else to see it.

Jim, I have watched the Jimquisition since day one. I have seen every single codswollopping episode of your show. I even remember my first thoughts when I finished your first episode: "What a fucking arrogant prick." I remember sometimes even thinking you sounded entitled. Your points were always fair, even when I disagreed, but your style was hard to swallow at first. I kept watching your show though. Something told me to keep watching.

That something was right.

Thinking back to episode one, I would never have expected a lesson in humility to come from Jim Sterling. One of the first words that comes up in your opening credits is pride, after all. But humility came today. I hugely, completely, utterly, and unequivocally respect that. You're a good man, Jim. I think the gaming community as a whole could learn some humility. Thank you so much. I've been at the Escapist a long time now and I've never seen anything like that video. You're the best thing to happen to this website.

Do you live in North Carolina with the rest of the Escapist? If you do happen to read these and if I ever happen to be down there, is there any chance I could buy your lunch? Or is that too weird?

Cheers,
--Wes

 

[karkashan]

I've never understood why people hate Mass Effect 3 so much. It made sense, and wrapped up the story of Cmdr. Shepard quite nicely. Also the gameplay/mechanics were worlds above/better than Me2 and 1 (don't get me started on the broken morality system in 2 that pretty much forced you to shove Shepard into 1 of 2 roles in order to get anything of worth done).

 

[Strazdas]

No, Jim, we want Anita Sarkeesian to stop because she is a lieing scammer that would be in jail if it werent for popularity = immunity. She scammed people out of their money and failed to deliver on her contracts.
Also if we use the logic of entitlement you use, Anita is a spoiled brat. She thinks her unresearched opinions must be everyones opinions even if she is factually wrong.

Other than that chungus i completely agree with you and i am guilty of some entitlement myself, but i try to avoid it when i can.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

The fact that Jim and others constantly decry all of her critics as sexist annoys me and takes away from the discussion.

OK, so when exactly did Jim do that? And who are the "others"?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

No, Jim, we want Anita Sarkeesian to stop because she is a lieing scammer that would be in jail if it werent for popularity = immunity. She scammed people out of their money and failed to deliver on her contracts.

She scammed people out of money? That's news to me. How did she do that?

 

[ERaptor]

The fact that Jim and others constantly decry all of her critics as sexist annoys me and takes away from the discussion.

Pretty much this. You can point out as many flaws in her arguments as you want, and can be as reasonable as you want. You will be dismissed as being a sexist pig. It's the same with most discussions about transgender and others about sexism. If you disagree with anyone calling out a game/series/artist to be sexist or transphobic, you are part of the problem. You can basically write whatever you want about the subject, you WILL have at least a handful of very vocal people defending your argumentation, no matter how flawed it really is. There is a major difference between defending an opinion and just stating stuff that is provably wrong. And while Anita _DOES_ have the occasional valid point that I could agree with, she also gets a ton of things wrong and never even tries to adress anyone that disagrees with her or points out the flaws in her Videos.

Also, I do think this whole thing is a pretty loaded topic. On one hand, yes Reviewers are stating _their_ opinion on a game. But that does not exclude the possibility of them being wrong about certain stuff. I've certainly read Reviews that either skipped or ignored very obvious flaws in games, or made excuses for them. Im definetly in no position to demand any Videos or Articles to be deleted, or that any author has his position revoked just because I disagree. But I should be allowed to question a Reviewers credibility and argue the points he makes when I disagree with them. At least as long as im staying reasonable and promote actual discussion.

 

[Strazdas]

No, Jim, we want Anita Sarkeesian to stop because she is a lieing scammer that would be in jail if it werent for popularity = immunity. She scammed people out of their money and failed to deliver on her contracts.

She scammed people out of money? That's news to me. How did she do that?

She was doing a internet video series and then started a kickstarter to fund said series (That she was already doing). After she got funded neither her equipment, nor research (the reason she was asking money for) was improved. In fact the series even came out in longer increments than before. She asked for kickstarter money and did not deliver on said goal. Normally when this happens kickstarter forces the project to refund the money, but she was allowed to keep the scammed money. And she could not even be bothered to take her own video and stole it from youtube Let's Players (without crediting them).

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

Oh nice, I missed Jim actually sticking up for the "gaming community" after however long of calling us children who need someone else to dictate what we're allowed to buy or not and insulting us for pointing out that we're not misogynists to people calling us misogynists.

I remember that. I dunno, I don't think it's wrong to say "there needs to be someone making sure people aren't selling objectively broken games while still letting people buy subjectively bad games" (note this is ignoring the Early Access stuff).

OT: Well, Jim, I say you hit the nail on the head with this one. I've always noticed that in situations like these, very rarely is one person or side 100%, simply because everyone is capable of acting like dicks when it suits them, hence why I've always liked finding the middle ground where possible.

 

[Lotet]

And again if she was not blaming gamers, specifically male gamers the issue is non existent thus she has no valid ground to stand on in which to criticize. In the same essence of Jack Thompson. Literally you have to blame gamers or there is literally no need to criticize period. Gamers are literally the only people period who could have any blame.

Then WHY did you say:

Look I have watched, rewatched, and rewatched again all of Anita's Videos over and over again. The woman straight out blames a perpetuated misogynistic view of women, by gamers, because of how they are portrayed in video games.

As in all you right here, are misogynists because of games portrayal of women. That is her very thesis. I am not making this shit up, that is her damned basic premise for all her videos.

Then tell Pogilrup to:

Did she ever say that explicitly?

Look at her thesis statement.

???

There are plenty of reasons to argue against Anita, use them. Don't waste someones time by telling them to read something that is not relevant to what you're talking about.

I got guesses as to why you said to look at her thesis and none of them are good reasons. Please, you may be right, but when trying to prove you are right, only use what you actually understand.