On the contrary, it's both a well known and ironic fact that the School System is an angry optimistic shouter with a phobia of spelling.Yechezkel said:
*stops post right there before he gets even further off-topic*
The ism's in gaming
- Thread starter jdguy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
*stops post right there before he gets even further off-topic*
First, let me clarify again that my position is not about every outfit a women wears in a video game. I take exception to the extremely ridiculous ones, the ones which look downright painful to wear, or probably couldn't even be constructed to stand up to cosplay, much less actual combat. These outfits, IMO, make the character look stupid. This is a representation I'm supposed to identify/empathize with, but in no universe would a woman athlete/fighter wake up, go through her closet and put on what Rachel wears to *insert character's objective here.*Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Part of the miscommunication (and I agree with you there) is because people are trying to inject a larger issue into mine, and an over-simplified explanation of the motivations of women like this: "Maybe "ads, makeup, fashion, perfume samples" aren't "sex" but they are all designed to get a woman looking in such a way that the right guy will have sex with her, right? "
Wrong. I'll agree that's a part of it, but there's far more dots to connect than that. Why women do the things they do to themselves to be "beautiful" is far more complex than just getting a guy to have sex with her. I would bet that's not even a reason because, *cough* women know it's just not that hard to get a guy to have sex with her.
So the dots probably go to "ask me out, fall in love, get married," although even that's making huge assumptions. Maybe make-up just makes a woman feel more polished, more in control. Maybe it makes her feel younger. Maybe she's noticed people treat her differently, and she likes that feeling. Maybe she just likes putting on make-up. When I was younger I actually enjoyed the process of putting it on. There is a skill there, you know. Five years in Alaska cured me of that, and now I only put it on for "special occasions" and don't much enjoy the process. TMI--I know. As for marketing images being negative, you know, there's so much buzz about that, but I don't see it. I mean, I grew up with Barbie--and I mean OLD Barbie. I have memories of trading in my old Barbie to get a discount on the one with the "new twist waist" which was the first improvement over the shoulder hip/joint type. I loved Barbie. Played with her all the time with her giant boobs and tiny waist. I felt no need to have a boob job or therapy because of it. I think this is more a case of people pointing the finger at an easy scapegoat rather than the true underlying cause, sort of like how people are blaming food for how fat kids are, when the clear cut smoking gun is screen time. That's going off on a tangent, sorry, but you see my take on that and why I don't think it's applicable here when you consider the narrowness of my initial complaint.
It is very nice to discuss something with someone who makes me think. However, this answer will go greatly off-topic.
I say they are a scapegoat because they're an easy target, a quick thing to blame. IMO, girls are more susceptible to these images for the same reason young boys are have waning motivation. Too much youth, not enough growing up. "Youth" has now expanded into the late twenties, responsibility-wise. Fifty years ago, at eighteen you were pretty much expected to sally forth and make your life. There might be college, but those were the days when college wasn't an expectation. (My dad jokes that when he graduated college they'd pay you just to hang around. LOL.) You were raised with the expectation that you would leave after high school and make a life. What do you think that meant to a fourteen year old? Probably the same thing it means to a kid heading off to college today (if you're lucky.) So we've pushed fourteen into at least eighteen, expectation wise. Considering the number of parents calling college professors about their children's grades, I wonder what the actual "you're own your own" mark is.
Self-esteem is important, but the kind of false self-esteem we've been peddling to children has not helped them. They are kept at home in an entitled existence, with no real chores, a sort of self-aware boredom that only vacuous entertainment fills. Throw into this mix a maturing body, a body that says "I'm an adult." And this seems to be one area that parent indulge their kids in growing up: their appearance. And low and behold, in the absence of real earned accomplishment, they discover they can get approval through their appearance. They can wear the right clothes, plop on the makeup, carry around a cell phone and "play" at grown-up, not realizing that this is all a lie. Of course, the internet plays its own part since it's full of false self-esteem. Girls are filling themselves up on junk food self-esteem essentially. Is it any wonder they're pissed when they discover the lie?
Again, this is a fairly modern problem, so you have to look at what's really changed. Look at the movies of the 30s and forties, Marilyn Monroe, and of course, there were still the ubiquitous women's magazines during all of it, all full of the same ads for make up and perfume, et.al. But somehow, those daughters (and myself) didn't look in the mirror and despair more than a few moments that "I would never look like that." Apparently, their self-worth wasn't as tightly tied to their appearance.
So what's changed? It's how we raise the kids. Eternal childhood juxtaposed with a maturing body. A lack of self-esteem achieved through contribution and accomplishment, but filled with the transitory thrill of possession of a thing.
It's the same with screen time. We're far more diet conscious today than we ever were when I was a child. Most meals I ate were fried with gravy. No diet anything, and Kool-aid was made with real sugar. No low fat, whole grain anything. I never ate whole wheat bread until I was an adult. Yet there wasn't this epidemic of childhood obesity. So what's changed?
Screen time. When I was a kid, there was TV for kids on Saturday mornings, and from 3-5pm after school. Charlie Brown and the Wizard of Oz came on once a year, and woe to you if you missed them, because next time was a whole year away. Heck, when I was a kid "The Ten Commandments" was kid's TV because of all the special effects. LOL. Contrast that to the eight or ten cable stations dispensing 24 hour television for kids, the on demand viewing of DVDs, and of course computer and video games. We didn't have those things. We were outside riding our bikes, walking to the store with a quarter (to buy candy.) The last thing in the world we wanted was to be inside where our parents were.
I go to the grocery store, and Michael, my ten year old, comes along. It's a big grocery store, with a toy section and a pretty nice electronics section. So he comes with and vanishes there, hoping he can talk me into getting him something.
When I'm about halfway done, he runs up to me and says "can we get Soul Caliber IV?"
"No," I say. "Don't ask me for stuff while I'm shopping." Hmmm, I think, now I can go see the game though, and not just screenshots.
So later as we're checking out, I remember this and say "Darn, I wanted to check out that game," and Michael asks why.
"I hear the girls wear skimpy outfits."
He grins. "When they fall down you can see up their dress."
I can't resist. "Do you think that makes them look stupid for wearing a dress, or that they want the boys to look up their dress?"
He thinks. "A little bit of both, I guess."
I tell him I've been in an internet argument over that, and that someone told me it was women's magazines fault, and I gesture to the magazines littering the checkout.
"That's dumb," he says. "Why would a girl want to fight in a dress?"
And somehow it's goes from "it's dumb to fight in a dress" to "I don't see a problem with boobs hanging out while you're in a fight."
My ten year old son is perfectly willing to let a girl fight and look like a fighter. Where does it change I wonder? *grows misty eyed* I know we're all culpable in some way, it's just a part of our culture. When SC8 comes out and he's nineteen, will he grow googly eyed over Ivy's impossibly smaller costume, or will he still think it's dumb?
(Barbie has undergone a makeover, BTW. I'm not sure when but no longer does she have the wasp waist and torpedoes of my youth. I don't know the details because I only have boys, which is probably a good thing because those "Brats" dolls look atrocious.)
I say they are a scapegoat because they're an easy target, a quick thing to blame. IMO, girls are more susceptible to these images for the same reason young boys are have waning motivation. Too much youth, not enough growing up. "Youth" has now expanded into the late twenties, responsibility-wise. Fifty years ago, at eighteen you were pretty much expected to sally forth and make your life. There might be college, but those were the days when college wasn't an expectation. (My dad jokes that when he graduated college they'd pay you just to hang around. LOL.) You were raised with the expectation that you would leave after high school and make a life. What do you think that meant to a fourteen year old? Probably the same thing it means to a kid heading off to college today (if you're lucky.) So we've pushed fourteen into at least eighteen, expectation wise. Considering the number of parents calling college professors about their children's grades, I wonder what the actual "you're own your own" mark is.
Self-esteem is important, but the kind of false self-esteem we've been peddling to children has not helped them. They are kept at home in an entitled existence, with no real chores, a sort of self-aware boredom that only vacuous entertainment fills. Throw into this mix a maturing body, a body that says "I'm an adult." And this seems to be one area that parent indulge their kids in growing up: their appearance. And low and behold, in the absence of real earned accomplishment, they discover they can get approval through their appearance. They can wear the right clothes, plop on the makeup, carry around a cell phone and "play" at grown-up, not realizing that this is all a lie. Of course, the internet plays its own part since it's full of false self-esteem. Girls are filling themselves up on junk food self-esteem essentially. Is it any wonder they're pissed when they discover the lie?
Again, this is a fairly modern problem, so you have to look at what's really changed. Look at the movies of the 30s and forties, Marilyn Monroe, and of course, there were still the ubiquitous women's magazines during all of it, all full of the same ads for make up and perfume, et.al. But somehow, those daughters (and myself) didn't look in the mirror and despair more than a few moments that "I would never look like that." Apparently, their self-worth wasn't as tightly tied to their appearance.
So what's changed? It's how we raise the kids. Eternal childhood juxtaposed with a maturing body. A lack of self-esteem achieved through contribution and accomplishment, but filled with the transitory thrill of possession of a thing.
It's the same with screen time. We're far more diet conscious today than we ever were when I was a child. Most meals I ate were fried with gravy. No diet anything, and Kool-aid was made with real sugar. No low fat, whole grain anything. I never ate whole wheat bread until I was an adult. Yet there wasn't this epidemic of childhood obesity. So what's changed?
Screen time. When I was a kid, there was TV for kids on Saturday mornings, and from 3-5pm after school. Charlie Brown and the Wizard of Oz came on once a year, and woe to you if you missed them, because next time was a whole year away. Heck, when I was a kid "The Ten Commandments" was kid's TV because of all the special effects. LOL. Contrast that to the eight or ten cable stations dispensing 24 hour television for kids, the on demand viewing of DVDs, and of course computer and video games. We didn't have those things. We were outside riding our bikes, walking to the store with a quarter (to buy candy.) The last thing in the world we wanted was to be inside where our parents were.
Of course it's a personal preference, but I have shared some of the examples shown here to other women who also think they're not flattering to the perception of women. But at the risk of making this the Longest Post Eva, I will share with you a conversation that occurred today.cheeze_pavilion said:
I go to the grocery store, and Michael, my ten year old, comes along. It's a big grocery store, with a toy section and a pretty nice electronics section. So he comes with and vanishes there, hoping he can talk me into getting him something.
When I'm about halfway done, he runs up to me and says "can we get Soul Caliber IV?"
"No," I say. "Don't ask me for stuff while I'm shopping." Hmmm, I think, now I can go see the game though, and not just screenshots.
So later as we're checking out, I remember this and say "Darn, I wanted to check out that game," and Michael asks why.
"I hear the girls wear skimpy outfits."
He grins. "When they fall down you can see up their dress."
I can't resist. "Do you think that makes them look stupid for wearing a dress, or that they want the boys to look up their dress?"
He thinks. "A little bit of both, I guess."
I tell him I've been in an internet argument over that, and that someone told me it was women's magazines fault, and I gesture to the magazines littering the checkout.
"That's dumb," he says. "Why would a girl want to fight in a dress?"
And somehow it's goes from "it's dumb to fight in a dress" to "I don't see a problem with boobs hanging out while you're in a fight."
My ten year old son is perfectly willing to let a girl fight and look like a fighter. Where does it change I wonder? *grows misty eyed* I know we're all culpable in some way, it's just a part of our culture. When SC8 comes out and he's nineteen, will he grow googly eyed over Ivy's impossibly smaller costume, or will he still think it's dumb?
(Barbie has undergone a makeover, BTW. I'm not sure when but no longer does she have the wasp waist and torpedoes of my youth. I don't know the details because I only have boys, which is probably a good thing because those "Brats" dolls look atrocious.)
Yay! Passive-Aggresive flames.LisaB1138 said:
Seriously. You're trying to have people take you seriously, and yet you look down your nose at them? Way to lose the internet.
I didn't. Ever.
PA Flame again.
root of all evil said:
Nope. You said
Which included a ripped evening dress and shorts whilst in the Artic.
Which of course isn't sexy.
root of all evil said:
But no-one teaches it.
Which is why you have Trinny And Suzannah to tell you.
Clue: Individual Rights, influenced by Media, having priority over Social Norms.
PA Flame.
So, you would also agree that Men can wear T-Shirts and Jeans to their weddings, for example. Or socks with their sandals?
So all you want to do is change society to fit your beliefs. Seems perfectly fine to me.
Apart from the idea that you're trying to change a GENRE, rather than a LIFESTYLE.
Case in point. You're specifically targeting the image of Women in Video Games. Now, these derived from the original women in Animation, and before that, from Comics.
Now, as any good cartoonist will tell you, there are certain differences between the "Normal Human" and the "Animated Human". The first of these is body proportion. A normal person will be approximately 6 times the height of the head high. Animated people will be 7 to 8 times high, as it accentuates their 'larger than life' appearance. Women will be more curved, Men will be more Angular. Villains will be made of sharp lines, Heroes will be drawn less acutely.
Cartoon Physics also come into play; which is why Ivy's Breasts stay in her costume, and Bison's Hat stays on when he performs the Psycho-Crusher. Not because it's realistic, but because it's Dramatically Appropriate.
Similar happens with fight scenes. You perform a Pile Driver on anyone properly, and their vertebrae will shatter.
Now if you're saying that women should wear more sensible clothing, then I've already given you a list of women who do. If you're saying ALL women should wear sensible clothing, then surely you're being just a TAD oversensitive?
Ok, let's take this in turn.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Dhalsim : Yoga Master : Skulls and loincloth? No.
Blanka : Capoeira : Shorts? No.
Ken/Ryu : Shotokan Karate : Gi's? Not unless they're meditating under a waterfall.
Vega : Savate/Ninjitsu/Bull Fighting : Bright leotard? No
Sagat : Muay Thai : Shorts? No.
E.Honda : Sumotori
ossibly the only one who does fit; but he fights in a sauna.Balrog : Boxer : No gumshield etc.? No.
Guile : Special Forces Training : Dogtags and Combat boots? In a fight? No.
Chun Li : Wushu : Chinese Gymnastics Outfit. Uhh..Yeah. She became an Interpol Agent afterwards, and yes, she was undercover. Trying to find the man who murdered her Father.
The waitress approach came after Chun-Li became so famous; in the same way as the Rachel haircut.
I could also add in Athena, Sophitia, Sonya Blade, Yuri, Joan to the fully clothed; and Dragon, Rasputin, Heidern, Raiden (either), Einhander, Caffeine-Nicotine, Big Bear, Heihachi, Nightmare and a Giant Panda into the ridiculous costume list.
I love how I've already entered your life, but next time, have a look at what I actually said.
You said "Sex doesn't sell women's magazines"
I said "Here's Cosmo"
You said "Apart from Cosmo"
I said "Here's a load more"
You said "They don't tell you to wear a bikini to work."
I said "Huh???????"
And hold on...you're asking a 10 year old why he wants to see up dresses????????????????????
Ken/Ryu : Shotokan Karate : Gi's? Not unless they're meditating under a waterfall.
(Um yes, Gi's are standard at competition and actually give you a lot more options when it comes to grappling because of extra grip they provide. If he'd trained in one, he'd have more tools at his disposable wearing one in a fight.
Vega : Savate/Ninjitsu/Bull Fighting : Bright leotard? No
(Vega's outfit is surprisingly close to an actual matador's outfit, simply without the shirt and the stupid hat)
Sagat : Muay Thai : Shorts? No.
*From experience* Um yes.
Balrog : Boxer : No gumshield etc.? No.
Dubious, complaining about a lack of safety equipment in an illegal street fight is kind of missing the point. He doesn't wear a gum guard for the same reason Sagat doesn't wear shin guards. But it is kind of weird that chun li gets to wear spiked god damn gauntlets.
[/quote]
(Um yes, Gi's are standard at competition and actually give you a lot more options when it comes to grappling because of extra grip they provide. If he'd trained in one, he'd have more tools at his disposable wearing one in a fight.
Vega : Savate/Ninjitsu/Bull Fighting : Bright leotard? No
(Vega's outfit is surprisingly close to an actual matador's outfit, simply without the shirt and the stupid hat)
Sagat : Muay Thai : Shorts? No.
*From experience* Um yes.
Balrog : Boxer : No gumshield etc.? No.
Dubious, complaining about a lack of safety equipment in an illegal street fight is kind of missing the point. He doesn't wear a gum guard for the same reason Sagat doesn't wear shin guards. But it is kind of weird that chun li gets to wear spiked god damn gauntlets.
[/quote]
If you're throwing fireballs though, Gi's aren't really practical. They're more for Judo.
You don't wear bright colours in a bull fight. (Even if they are colour blind)
A 7 foot tall guy who's been burnt across the chest just wearing shorts?
Balrog still couldn't pull hist shirt off with gloves on though.
You don't wear bright colours in a bull fight. (Even if they are colour blind)
A 7 foot tall guy who's been burnt across the chest just wearing shorts?
Balrog still couldn't pull hist shirt off with gloves on though.
There is a ton of sexism in the game industry, don't even argue against it. And when people moan about "Well what if it was fat king, nobody would HUDURRR...." Yeah, well men don't make 70% of women's salary in America based on their natural chromosome, and aren't treated like oppressed sexual objects in most cultures. Maybe if they released "Fat King says only men with large penises will ever find love: Millenium Edition," then maybe I'd agree it's not very cool.
Really, how hard would it be to tell the pocket miners to screw off and fall back on a realistic-looking woman who's not a violent bull-dyke or submissive love interest? Most games now look like something from Spike TV, and it's not exactly a good way to introduce women to gaming. And yeah, I'm a guy (to all you juvenile squats who want to call me gay). So what if I actually give a crap about the politics that I preach?
Really, how hard would it be to tell the pocket miners to screw off and fall back on a realistic-looking woman who's not a violent bull-dyke or submissive love interest? Most games now look like something from Spike TV, and it's not exactly a good way to introduce women to gaming. And yeah, I'm a guy (to all you juvenile squats who want to call me gay). So what if I actually give a crap about the politics that I preach?
First point makes sense. Although it would be really funny. Hardo-ARGHJESUS I'M ON FIRE!The_root_of_all_evil said:
and bullfighters do wear bright colors for a bullfight. They're supposed to stand ou. Hell most of them are covered in fucking sequins and shit. The idea is the gaudier you look the more of an attractive target you'll be. Which makes you 'braver' when you stab an animal in the throat with a sword.
You never see shirts in Muay Thai and the shorts are.... really really short. But it really depends how long ago Sagat got the scar. Again I think it's more about comfort than anything else, Sagat is a professional so all of his major fights will have been in regular muay thai gear. I do like how he's wrapped his feet though, very realistic.
Finally. I always did wonder about balrog's gloves till i actually boxed for a while. If he's throwing full power hooks he's going to end up breaking his hands. Smaller mma style gloves would make more sense but I suppose they need to make him stand out as a boxer.
Wait wait wait. Where did all this self-esteem bullshit come from? What does Ivy's massive breasts or fighting in an African village have to do with self-esteem?
I'm sure, from what I've gathered from reading over the last few pages, that once again someone is spouting the usual nonsence that gaming is warping the ideals of the youth and reinforcing the idea of racism and women's image.
Did no one even stop to think, for just a second, that the actual creator of the game wanted the characters to look like that? Wanted the plot to be like that?
Creating a character is very difficult, you have to give them storyline and design them meticulously before you get them perfect. How can it be the fault of the entire company if that one designer just... wanted the game to be a certain way.
You could easily argue that they go for what sells, but as any artist would know, or writer would know, media and money is good but does not come at the price of creativity. The creation of a game is soley down to the writers and designers, and the BIG BOSSES and corporation heads may want stuff that sells, but the creators will still try to make it as much their own as they can, not just what the people want. The curse of being an artist, and it is not obstructed by media, if anything, it is a creative outlet.
So the women look breathtaingly beautiful, so the men are muscled and sexy, so the guns are over the top and the violence is hardcore, so the plot somehow revolves around shooting minority groups.
The women are thin because they have to be, in order to look realistic to play the part. Would an unfit woman be running around the forest, hiding from monsters, weilding guns/swords/other heavy weapons while still fleeing for hours on foot and doing incredible feats of acrobatics? I think not.
The plot just happens to be in an African village right? So WHY are they shooting the Africans, hmmm? Could it possibly be because of the virus infecting them and causing them to turn into mindless monsters bent on destruction? That might just be it. It's not because they are black, it's because THERE'S A DEADLY VIRUS CAUSING THEM TO GO INSANE. (I don't know the plot of RE5, but it's near enough the same thing, shuddup you get my point)
The point is, it's not the media or the faceless corporation, it's down to the development and the creativity behind it, which in it's own right, is a difficult and meticulously developed work of art, which cannot be criticised properly because it comes down to opinion really (I mean the art direction, not the game as in game-play wise, I mean story and characters and concepts).
Yes, I am a games-are-art-hippie, but without the designers, the writers and the artists, there would be no game to be developed, and a surprising amount of work goes into the concept/dialogue/plot.
So there you have it, it's not the media's fault, it's the directors for choosing to put his/hers ideas foreward.
And fair play to them I say.
I'm sure, from what I've gathered from reading over the last few pages, that once again someone is spouting the usual nonsence that gaming is warping the ideals of the youth and reinforcing the idea of racism and women's image.
Did no one even stop to think, for just a second, that the actual creator of the game wanted the characters to look like that? Wanted the plot to be like that?
Creating a character is very difficult, you have to give them storyline and design them meticulously before you get them perfect. How can it be the fault of the entire company if that one designer just... wanted the game to be a certain way.
You could easily argue that they go for what sells, but as any artist would know, or writer would know, media and money is good but does not come at the price of creativity. The creation of a game is soley down to the writers and designers, and the BIG BOSSES and corporation heads may want stuff that sells, but the creators will still try to make it as much their own as they can, not just what the people want. The curse of being an artist, and it is not obstructed by media, if anything, it is a creative outlet.
So the women look breathtaingly beautiful, so the men are muscled and sexy, so the guns are over the top and the violence is hardcore, so the plot somehow revolves around shooting minority groups.
The women are thin because they have to be, in order to look realistic to play the part. Would an unfit woman be running around the forest, hiding from monsters, weilding guns/swords/other heavy weapons while still fleeing for hours on foot and doing incredible feats of acrobatics? I think not.
The plot just happens to be in an African village right? So WHY are they shooting the Africans, hmmm? Could it possibly be because of the virus infecting them and causing them to turn into mindless monsters bent on destruction? That might just be it. It's not because they are black, it's because THERE'S A DEADLY VIRUS CAUSING THEM TO GO INSANE. (I don't know the plot of RE5, but it's near enough the same thing, shuddup you get my point)
The point is, it's not the media or the faceless corporation, it's down to the development and the creativity behind it, which in it's own right, is a difficult and meticulously developed work of art, which cannot be criticised properly because it comes down to opinion really (I mean the art direction, not the game as in game-play wise, I mean story and characters and concepts).
Yes, I am a games-are-art-hippie, but without the designers, the writers and the artists, there would be no game to be developed, and a surprising amount of work goes into the concept/dialogue/plot.
So there you have it, it's not the media's fault, it's the directors for choosing to put his/hers ideas foreward.
And fair play to them I say.
Vega isn't wearing an outfit for combat. Like Chun Li he's wearing something impractical and attention grabbing.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Just a nod to sexism here. In my experience, girls really don't seem to care about the half dressed girls in video games. Funny story: for each of my last *counts* four girlfriends, I have had one Dead or Alive game. I own plenty of games from all different genres, but Dead or Alive was always their pick. This has gone on since DOA 2 on Dreamcast.
My point is that as long as males dont make a big deal of the nakedness (or flaunt it by using the unlockable bikini costumes that in my opinion are just stupid) then girls really couldn't care less about minor sexism.
Some of my female friends favourite games include Dead or Alive, Portal (and they didn't even know they were playing as a female character) and Assassins Creed. The only games I've known to be hated by women are Chronicles of Riddick and Doom3. Other than that, they're game. Hell, my little feminist of a sister plays Tomb Raider games quite happily
My point is that as long as males dont make a big deal of the nakedness (or flaunt it by using the unlockable bikini costumes that in my opinion are just stupid) then girls really couldn't care less about minor sexism.
Some of my female friends favourite games include Dead or Alive, Portal (and they didn't even know they were playing as a female character) and Assassins Creed. The only games I've known to be hated by women are Chronicles of Riddick and Doom3. Other than that, they're game. Hell, my little feminist of a sister plays Tomb Raider games quite happily
Heh, to be honest the Imagine games do seem to be on shaky ground and probably will have a hard time defending their point. The various others though seem to either be a blatant rant of a feminist (Which I find as disgusting as the polar opposite, aka the male version). The one against Resident Evil 5 is something that has been done before, but the issue being that the rating is of course going to be M which is for people like me 17+ and while the ESRB still exists you will never be able to say that a game is focused towards the younger audience unless you motion towards something like Manhunt that focuses on the bloodlust fantasy that all ten year old boys seem to develop for an odd reason. All and all besides the Imagine series the rest of these rants seem to either be based on feminist who wouldn't see a point if it was stabbed through their arm (Remember what I said about the polar opposites) or those who play the race card who I keep in the same league. Sadly though people will keep on drinking this stuff in because they love confrontation despite how much they lie to the contrary.Decoy Doctorpus said:
Alright I'm actually going to add more because this topic really pushed my buttons. -Shudders- Feminist, Misogynist, Racist who call others racist, and various extremists of all brands tend to disgust me as a whole. The whole concept of blindly following a belief without an opening to discussion by groups claiming to have an open mind is a sort of widely accepted hypocrisy that drives me up a wall. You can only be one! A close minded jerk, or an open minded jerk, pick one and admit to it! I'd rather be talking with a racist who knows he or she is a racist and not one who would never admit the fact that they claim a game is racist simply because of the demographic focus. Maybe all of you should put down your emotional and mental shields for once and indulge yourselves in a life without paranoia based on false accusations done by you! Other then them I love you all and you all get hugs -Hugs-. I'm off!