The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

AngryGerbil_sl said:

You've brought Thunderfoot up sooo much. I came to my conclusions by... watching Anita's video.

Click to expand...

Tanoomba_sl said:

The problem with your question is it doesn't even ACKNOWLEDGE the reality of what she was saying. Your question (incorrectly) takes for granted that what she was talking about has anything to do with whether or not the game rewards you for killing hookers.

Click to expand...

Tanoomba_sl said:

Chaos: "I don't care what you think she meant by that word or what she said she meant, "

Really? Well, there you go. We have our impasse. I think how she explains herself is more important than whether she has your permission to use a word a specific way or not.




Chaos: "Dude, I would play Roy a hundred times a day if I could, shit breaks and all."

Sure, so would I. You know why it sounds awesome? Because it's like living an alternate life free of real-world consequences. If Roy were a game, a huge number of people would throw themselves off buildings, sneak into locker rooms, go on joyrides, hold up stores, basically carry any actions that the real world wouldn't let them get away with. That's how people play video games, and developers know that very well. That's why I think it's unreasonable to try to compare video games with real life.




Chaos: "If you are stating that every action possible in the game has been specifically designed so that players would interact with it in a specific way, that's no longer an open-world, sandbox concept."

Not every possible action, no. But the rules that determine what is/isn't allowed are not haphazard. They are carefully crafted and put into place with intent, and the developers want players to explore and see what they can get away with. They also have a pretty good idea of what players like to do, and they make efforts to accommodate popular desires. Why use running around in circles as an example when we can use hooker/stripper killing? Do you deny that that became an unofficial stereotype of GTA? Do you think there is no connection between that and the fact that at least 25 modern open-world games include killable hookers/strippers, or do you believe it's just a coincidence, or that it's a consequence of trying to be more "realistic"?

OK, so you've said you think Sarkeesian is being deceptive. Would you call her a liar? Do you think there's value in calling her a liar?

Click to expand...

Tanoomba_sl said:

Gerb: "You've brought Thunderfoot up sooo much. I came to my conclusions by... watching Anita's video. His name coming up later as a 'well-poisoner' means nothing to me. You are giving that dude, whoever he is, way too much credit I think."

Yeah, except I wasn't the one who initially linked his video (before which there was no such thing as "the Hitman argument" on this message board, IIRC), I DID objectively show how he misrepresented Sark's work, and I still got a barrage of "No, he's spot on" responses from multiple people who love to rave about how important facts are except when they don't suit their needs. I have reason to believe he played a significant role in shaping a narrative that gained a lot of popularity, even if you claim to be a special snowflake that relied on your own inability to properly evaluate information instead of TF's. FFS, out of the hundreds of anti-Sarkeesian videos out there he's the one who got a specific mention in her last speech, as she had to go out of her way specifically to address the narrative he spawned. So no, I'm not giving him too much credit.





Khalid: "Suppose we held a study to see, after watching Anita's video, what percentage of non-gamers would believe that...
A) Hitman rewards you for killing hookers
B) Hitman does nothing when you kill hookers
C) Hitman penalizes you for killing hookers

I think there is no doubt that a much higher percentage of people would pick A and B. Does anyone doubt this would happen other than Tanoomba?

If so, then the best you can say about Anita's video is that it is misleading. If she deliberately did it, she is lying."

See, this is fucked up. This post is so fucking ridiculous I honestly just want to say "What is this shit?" and leave it at that, but I don't have that luxury. If I dismiss this for the garbage it is, I will be accused of "ignoring valid points" or "admitting defeat" or some such nonsense. So I actually have to treat a fucking moronic post with undeserved respect in anticipation of dishonest inferences. Meanwhile, I can make a legitimate point and back it up with objective facts, and I can't do anything about it when it's dismissed outright because the frat boy mentality of "majority rules" wins out over actually adhering to the principles you supposedly take such pride in.

Alright, here goes...

Here's a better scenario: Suppose we held a study to see, after watching Anita's video, what percentage of non-gamers would believe that...
a) She misrepresented Hitman because she said "encourages" when the game actually 'DIScourages".
b) Reward/punishment has nothing to do with implicitly being encouraged to interact with objects the only way you can.
c) What is this? Who gives a shit?

Now we KNOW that the majority of anti-Sarkeesies are going to choose a). But when it comes to non-gamers, people who haven't been conditioned by propaganda, people who don't think SJWs are trying to take their games away, people who watch unedited explanations and understand how context works... Well, b) is going to be a distant second to c) (because, let's face it, non-gamers don't really give a shit what Sarkeesian has to say).

The problem with your question is it doesn't even ACKNOWLEDGE the reality of what she was saying. Your question (incorrectly) takes for granted that what she was talking about has anything to do with whether or not the game rewards you for killing hookers. On top of that, your question forgets that she EXPLICITLY points out that there usually ARE negative consequences for the actions she describes, which would bump up the number of people who chose c) significantly. Like I said, your post was garbage. I didn't dismiss it, I took the time and effort to explain why, even though it will fall on deaf ears.

Are you ready to man up yet, Khalid? How much more time do you need? You can't just run away from your failures, they will always catch up to you.

Click to expand...

chaos_sl said:

You typed out a lot of stuff here to dance around his point. Encouragement involves enticement or reward. Otherwise it isn't encouragement.

I have a confession bros: I have never even played Hitman. The game looked dumb to me. But funny enough, when I first saw this Sarkeesian video I thought choice A was actually true. The video is framed as if his goal was to mutilate the body of a hooker, as if this was the mission or the goal. It wasn't until the controversy that I actually researched and was kind of taken aback at how misleading and inaccurate that was. Because when you frame it accurately and say "here is something possible to do in a sandbox/open-world concept video game, but you will be actively punished for it" then the whole context changes. You're getting all mad at khalid, but maybe you need to watch that shit again with soft eyes.

Click to expand...