Gravy
Bronze Squire
- 4,918
- 458
Oh, you mean like white people. Or black people. Or just people. That was a fucking horrible analogy.
The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Chaos: "It isn't about permission. You don't just decide spontaneously that words have different meanings."
All right, Chaos, let's take a look at her actual words again. I am not going to patronize or talk down to you, but I am going to guide you through the process of understanding what somebody is saying based on the words they are using. Bear with me.
Anita: "I should note that this kind of misogynistic behavior isn?t always mandatory; often it?s player-directed, but it is always implicitly ENCOURAGED."
Already, the fact that she's using "implicitly" means we are not talking about being guided, pushed or rewarded in any explicit way. Would you disagree with that? Or are you insisting that encouragement, by its very nature, can ONLY be explicit? In any case, as if anticipating that what she said might cause confusion, she IMMEDIATELY explains:
Anita: "In order to understand how this works, let?s take a moment to examine how video game systems operate as playgrounds for player engagement."
"This" meaning "how such actions are implicitly encouraged", right? I'm not twisting anything around to interpret it in a unique and unlikely way here. Are you with me? So she's made 2 things clear so far: She's not talking about games pushing you into doing certain actions, and in order to understand what she means by "implicitly encouraged", we have to understand "how video game systems operate as playgrounds for player engagement", which, of course, she proceeds to explain:
Anita: "Games ask us to play with them."
Now, if you want to go by your logic, games don't ask us to play with them at all. Games just exist and we can choose whether or not to play them. Unless she's talking about advertising or something, right? But she isn't. She continues:
Anita; "Now that may seem obvious, but bear with me. Game developers set up a series of rules and then within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do, and what we can?t do."
Here she uses the word "invited" similarly to how she uses "implicitly encouraged". The game never actually TELLS the player "Hey, player! Test the mechanics to see what you can do and what you can't do!". Rather, she is referring to the now significantly developed symbiotic developer-player relationship, where players understand the "language" of video games and how to play them, and developers understand what players' expectations are and make use of them in order to make games feel natural and intuitive. She continues:
Anita: "We are ENCOURAGED to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not."
There's that word again. Here we see a stronger parallel forming between how she uses "encouraged" and "invited". Please not she has yet to say ANY game encourages killing hookers, let alone Hitman, which she hasn't mentioned yet (even though she's got a clip playing in the background). She's still only giving context so clarify that she is talking about how games are designed to be played. They are, after all, literally DESIGNED to be PLAYED (unlike real life, by the way). Now I imagine you would crack out the ol' "But that's not what encourage means!" chestnut again, after which I would again say 'Do you understand the point she's making?" Developers know how players play games. While many games still make use of "Press Start" text on the title screen, many don't because they assume the player has played enough games to take that as a given. In those cases, even though the titles screen does NOT tell you to "Press Start", you are still implicitly encouraged to do so because that is the "language" of games that is understood by both players and designers. To go back to a past example, this is the same way Super Mario implicitly encourages you to press right the moment the game starts, because there are few ways the player can have an impact on the game at all at that point, and fewer still that lead to progress being made. Back to Anita:
Anita: "The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibilities within the gamespace."
Everybody who has ever played Duck Hunt has tried to shoot the dog. Most have done it a couple of times for novelty's sake but, after realizing that there is no reaction, most gave up on that action. If you COULD shoot the dog, the number of instances of dog-shooting would exponentially increase. Players would realize the game is giving them permission to indulge in a non-gameplay related bit of fun and they would take advantage of it. In that sense, if Nintendo made a Duck Hunt remake and decided to let you shoot the dog this time, they would be implicitly encouraging players to do so, ESPECIALLY since they know there's already a demand for that. The reason Anita uses "encouraged" instead of "allowed" is because it's more than just the designers going "you can do this if you want". They know what players want, they know how players play games, and they know how to tap into that to make great, engaging experiences. I would even go as far as saying the link between creator and consumer is stronger in the game industry than it is in any other form of entertainment media.
Also, note that she's done with the word "encourage". She doesn't use it again until an unrelated context later. She never once said Hitman or any game encourages killing hookers (in that video, at least). Now you've made it clear that you don't care how she explains herself. You draw the line because, for you, "encourage" HAS to be used in a specific way, regardless of whether or not it actually fits within a different context (which it totally does in this case). But that's your problem. How can you understand what she's saying if you actually don't care how she explains herself? I was taught when studying language that context plays a greater role in communication than even word choice. If you're going to dismiss context altogether because you want to get pedantic about word choice, then you can't see the forest for the trees.
That's the problem with the Anti-Sarkeesies as a whole. They have a narrative they want to push and they will focus all their attention on whatever will allow them to do so while dismissing any rebuttals or alternative interpretations (even more likely ones) as invalid without even acknowledging that they exist. That's not a debate. You, Chaos, are a rare exception in that you actually seem interested in discussing this and not just looking for excuses to ridicule me. I sincerely appreciate that.
All right, Chaos, let's take a look at her actual words again. I am not going to patronize or talk down to you, but I am going to guide you through the process of understanding what somebody is saying based on the words they are using. Bear with me.
Anita: "I should note that this kind of misogynistic behavior isn?t always mandatory; often it?s player-directed, but it is always implicitly ENCOURAGED."
Already, the fact that she's using "implicitly" means we are not talking about being guided, pushed or rewarded in any explicit way. Would you disagree with that? Or are you insisting that encouragement, by its very nature, can ONLY be explicit? In any case, as if anticipating that what she said might cause confusion, she IMMEDIATELY explains:
Anita: "In order to understand how this works, let?s take a moment to examine how video game systems operate as playgrounds for player engagement."
"This" meaning "how such actions are implicitly encouraged", right? I'm not twisting anything around to interpret it in a unique and unlikely way here. Are you with me? So she's made 2 things clear so far: She's not talking about games pushing you into doing certain actions, and in order to understand what she means by "implicitly encouraged", we have to understand "how video game systems operate as playgrounds for player engagement", which, of course, she proceeds to explain:
Anita: "Games ask us to play with them."
Now, if you want to go by your logic, games don't ask us to play with them at all. Games just exist and we can choose whether or not to play them. Unless she's talking about advertising or something, right? But she isn't. She continues:
Anita; "Now that may seem obvious, but bear with me. Game developers set up a series of rules and then within those rules we are invited to test the mechanics to see what we can do, and what we can?t do."
Here she uses the word "invited" similarly to how she uses "implicitly encouraged". The game never actually TELLS the player "Hey, player! Test the mechanics to see what you can do and what you can't do!". Rather, she is referring to the now significantly developed symbiotic developer-player relationship, where players understand the "language" of video games and how to play them, and developers understand what players' expectations are and make use of them in order to make games feel natural and intuitive. She continues:
Anita: "We are ENCOURAGED to experiment with how the system will react or respond to our inputs and discover which of our actions are permitted and which are not."
There's that word again. Here we see a stronger parallel forming between how she uses "encouraged" and "invited". Please not she has yet to say ANY game encourages killing hookers, let alone Hitman, which she hasn't mentioned yet (even though she's got a clip playing in the background). She's still only giving context so clarify that she is talking about how games are designed to be played. They are, after all, literally DESIGNED to be PLAYED (unlike real life, by the way). Now I imagine you would crack out the ol' "But that's not what encourage means!" chestnut again, after which I would again say 'Do you understand the point she's making?" Developers know how players play games. While many games still make use of "Press Start" text on the title screen, many don't because they assume the player has played enough games to take that as a given. In those cases, even though the titles screen does NOT tell you to "Press Start", you are still implicitly encouraged to do so because that is the "language" of games that is understood by both players and designers. To go back to a past example, this is the same way Super Mario implicitly encourages you to press right the moment the game starts, because there are few ways the player can have an impact on the game at all at that point, and fewer still that lead to progress being made. Back to Anita:
Anita: "The play comes from figuring out the boundaries and possibilities within the gamespace."
Everybody who has ever played Duck Hunt has tried to shoot the dog. Most have done it a couple of times for novelty's sake but, after realizing that there is no reaction, most gave up on that action. If you COULD shoot the dog, the number of instances of dog-shooting would exponentially increase. Players would realize the game is giving them permission to indulge in a non-gameplay related bit of fun and they would take advantage of it. In that sense, if Nintendo made a Duck Hunt remake and decided to let you shoot the dog this time, they would be implicitly encouraging players to do so, ESPECIALLY since they know there's already a demand for that. The reason Anita uses "encouraged" instead of "allowed" is because it's more than just the designers going "you can do this if you want". They know what players want, they know how players play games, and they know how to tap into that to make great, engaging experiences. I would even go as far as saying the link between creator and consumer is stronger in the game industry than it is in any other form of entertainment media.
Also, note that she's done with the word "encourage". She doesn't use it again until an unrelated context later. She never once said Hitman or any game encourages killing hookers (in that video, at least). Now you've made it clear that you don't care how she explains herself. You draw the line because, for you, "encourage" HAS to be used in a specific way, regardless of whether or not it actually fits within a different context (which it totally does in this case). But that's your problem. How can you understand what she's saying if you actually don't care how she explains herself? I was taught when studying language that context plays a greater role in communication than even word choice. If you're going to dismiss context altogether because you want to get pedantic about word choice, then you can't see the forest for the trees.
That's the problem with the Anti-Sarkeesies as a whole. They have a narrative they want to push and they will focus all their attention on whatever will allow them to do so while dismissing any rebuttals or alternative interpretations (even more likely ones) as invalid without even acknowledging that they exist. That's not a debate. You, Chaos, are a rare exception in that you actually seem interested in discussing this and not just looking for excuses to ridicule me. I sincerely appreciate that.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Khalid: "My little poll, the thing you found "so fucking ridiculious", is really actually a way to "prove" whether Anita's words are misleading for a mass market."
Nope. Still fucking ridiculous.Tthe rest of your post was garbage as well, and instead of wasting more time explaining why I have chosen to put that effort into talking with Chaos, because he's not a lying piece of shit.
Nope. Still fucking ridiculous.Tthe rest of your post was garbage as well, and instead of wasting more time explaining why I have chosen to put that effort into talking with Chaos, because he's not a lying piece of shit.
- 19,525
- 72,216
Anita's video implicitly encourages me to think that hitman positively reinforces killing strippers. I am invited to believe that it is specifically designed for me to derive a perverse pleasure from desecrating the unsuspecting bodies of virtual female characters. It's a rush streaming from a carefully concocted mix of sexual arousal, connected to the act of controlling and punishing representations of female sexuality.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
I like how you didn't quote Chaos agreeing with the part you find fucking ridiculous.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Fana: "and yet he says the same things about you and sarkeesian"
Yup, he does. Only he never proved shit, and I squirted a hot load of proof all over his face. He's been walking around since with the proof dribbling down his chin, one eye twitching as proof oozes into a corner, trying desperately to keep a straight face and act natural so nobody asks him why he doesn't get a napkin or something.
Yup, he does. Only he never proved shit, and I squirted a hot load of proof all over his face. He's been walking around since with the proof dribbling down his chin, one eye twitching as proof oozes into a corner, trying desperately to keep a straight face and act natural so nobody asks him why he doesn't get a napkin or something.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Fana: "You want to stick your dick into sarkeesian so bad it's hilarious."
... Based on literally nothing I have ever said. I would make fun of you for relying on lazy and flawed ways to ignore evidence that makes you uncomfortable, but I'm actually just really proud of you for writing a coherent sentence (missed upper-case letter and all). This is the Rickshaw, so you'll just have to imagine a sticker with a cartoon monkey and the words "Great job!" on it. You've earned it.
... Based on literally nothing I have ever said. I would make fun of you for relying on lazy and flawed ways to ignore evidence that makes you uncomfortable, but I'm actually just really proud of you for writing a coherent sentence (missed upper-case letter and all). This is the Rickshaw, so you'll just have to imagine a sticker with a cartoon monkey and the words "Great job!" on it. You've earned it.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,841
You wrote a huge, long post to try and qualify her use of the word encourage. That can't make you confident in your argument, come on.
Again, trying to frame every possible action in a game as being "implicitly encouraged" is just using the wrong meaning of the word encourage. And implicit, for that matter. If anything, every action in a game is game "explicitly possible." Anything beyond that assumes a level of insight into the development team and process that you couldn't possibly have. And an insight into the players that is both A) wrong and B) highly insulting.
Once you get past all the semantics, she's saying that a huge team of people from various backgrounds and cultures came together and intentionally decided to subjugate women, specifically, in a virtual world and encourage young males to do that as well. And that this is a hugely successful business model, that people around the globe are willing to pay a premium in order to abuse women virtually. It's horrific, when you lay it out plain. But she's speaking in circles about specific instances in the most general terms possible, making people kind of gloss over the meat of what she is saying. Men and women with families and lives came into work and plotted to keep women on the back foot.
In your own post, you're implying that gamers "want" to abuse women. That's silly.
Misogyny exists, for sure. There are even blatant examples of this in video games. She's trying to argue that this is what video games fundamentally are, at least any game that allows the player options that could be perceived as misogynistic. That's also silly.
I focus on her words because that is super important in trying to determine what she really means. Question: "Do video games such as Hitman or GTA encourage violence against women?" Answer: "Yes, of course." Question "In what way are these actions encouraged?" Answer "They exist as possibilities and are therefore encouraged."
^ that's fucking psycho logic right there.
Again, trying to frame every possible action in a game as being "implicitly encouraged" is just using the wrong meaning of the word encourage. And implicit, for that matter. If anything, every action in a game is game "explicitly possible." Anything beyond that assumes a level of insight into the development team and process that you couldn't possibly have. And an insight into the players that is both A) wrong and B) highly insulting.
Once you get past all the semantics, she's saying that a huge team of people from various backgrounds and cultures came together and intentionally decided to subjugate women, specifically, in a virtual world and encourage young males to do that as well. And that this is a hugely successful business model, that people around the globe are willing to pay a premium in order to abuse women virtually. It's horrific, when you lay it out plain. But she's speaking in circles about specific instances in the most general terms possible, making people kind of gloss over the meat of what she is saying. Men and women with families and lives came into work and plotted to keep women on the back foot.
In your own post, you're implying that gamers "want" to abuse women. That's silly.
Misogyny exists, for sure. There are even blatant examples of this in video games. She's trying to argue that this is what video games fundamentally are, at least any game that allows the player options that could be perceived as misogynistic. That's also silly.
I focus on her words because that is super important in trying to determine what she really means. Question: "Do video games such as Hitman or GTA encourage violence against women?" Answer: "Yes, of course." Question "In what way are these actions encouraged?" Answer "They exist as possibilities and are therefore encouraged."
^ that's fucking psycho logic right there.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Chaos: "You wrote a huge, long post to try and qualify her use of the word encourage. That can't make you confident in your argument, come on. "
To tell you the truth, it's all stuff that I considered readily apparent for a long time. I just tried to take you through it step by step so you could see I wasn't twisting anything around or trying to apply meaning to her words that wasn't there. Did you find any flaw in my reasoning? I'd genuinely like to hear about it if so.
Chaos: "Again, trying to frame every possible action in a game as being "implicitly encouraged" is just using the wrong meaning of the word encourage."
So, to clarify, you're saying there is no such thing as "implicit encouragement", right?
Chaos: "Anything beyond that assumes a level of insight into the development team and process that you couldn't possibly have."
Dude, game design isn't sorcery. There are a ton of conventions that have evolved and become standard features of video gaming as we know it. They become tools and guidelines for developers and expectations for gamers. I don't know why you're mystifying it.
Chaos: "Once you get past all the semantics, she's saying that a huge team of people from various backgrounds and cultures came together and intentionally decided to subjugate women, specifically, in a virtual world and encourage young males to do that as well. And that this is a hugely successful business model, that people around the globe are willing to pay a premium in order to abuse women virtually. It's horrific, when you lay it out plain."
Well, if you're describing it like an hand-wringing ideologue it sure sounds horrible, doesn't it? Even Sarkeesian held back on the reigns there a bit. I could take it a step in the opposite direction and say "Guys like tits so developers often put tits in games". Is that still horrific? I sure don't think so.
Chaos: "Men and women with families and lives came into work and plotted to keep women on the back foot. "
She never said or even implied that, dude. That's you drawing conclusions that aren't supported by her words. If anything, she's saying that the way the market has evolved to play into male fantasies may affect how gamers see and interact with RL women. She never implied that this was in any way intentional on the developers' part, and is in fact only suggesting that this idea be considered by both developers and players (she's "suggesting" because she sure as fuck can't force anyone to consider anything).
Chaos: "In your own post, you're implying that gamers "want" to abuse women. That's silly. "
Really, Chaos? Really? This is where you lose me. Why is nobody ready to acknowledge that GTA didn't just popularize killing hookers, it popularizing BEING PROUD of killing hookers? It's the "Tee hee! Look how naughty I'm being!" rush that made the series a hit, distilled to its most recognizable and popular instance. Again, it's not SJWs or the mainstream media that made hooker-killing a meme, it's gamers. And it's a trend we can see has spread to many other games. Heck, I found a plethora of videos featuring unironic, gleeful, and often overtly distasteful killing of strippers in Hitman Absolution alone (you know, the game "nobody kills the strippers in").
One difference between you and me is that you see the suggestion that gamers like killing hookers as a personal attack ("It's wrong and disgusting!") whereas I think it honestly doesn't matter. I don't give a fuck if some guys get a rush out of playing out misogynistic fantasies in video games. Heck, I don't even think it necessarily means they're misogynists. I, for one, very much like tits in my games and will happily enjoy unrealistic and exploitative eye candy, perhaps partially because part of the "escape from reality" aspect of video games is that I can ogle freely while I wouldn't do that IRL (I have FAR greater respect for women who exist in reality than I do for characters that were created to amuse me. Again, video games aren't real life).
Chaos: "^ that's fucking psycho logic right there."
Yes, it is. But Sarkeesian never said that.
To tell you the truth, it's all stuff that I considered readily apparent for a long time. I just tried to take you through it step by step so you could see I wasn't twisting anything around or trying to apply meaning to her words that wasn't there. Did you find any flaw in my reasoning? I'd genuinely like to hear about it if so.
Chaos: "Again, trying to frame every possible action in a game as being "implicitly encouraged" is just using the wrong meaning of the word encourage."
So, to clarify, you're saying there is no such thing as "implicit encouragement", right?
Chaos: "Anything beyond that assumes a level of insight into the development team and process that you couldn't possibly have."
Dude, game design isn't sorcery. There are a ton of conventions that have evolved and become standard features of video gaming as we know it. They become tools and guidelines for developers and expectations for gamers. I don't know why you're mystifying it.
Chaos: "Once you get past all the semantics, she's saying that a huge team of people from various backgrounds and cultures came together and intentionally decided to subjugate women, specifically, in a virtual world and encourage young males to do that as well. And that this is a hugely successful business model, that people around the globe are willing to pay a premium in order to abuse women virtually. It's horrific, when you lay it out plain."
Well, if you're describing it like an hand-wringing ideologue it sure sounds horrible, doesn't it? Even Sarkeesian held back on the reigns there a bit. I could take it a step in the opposite direction and say "Guys like tits so developers often put tits in games". Is that still horrific? I sure don't think so.
Chaos: "Men and women with families and lives came into work and plotted to keep women on the back foot. "
She never said or even implied that, dude. That's you drawing conclusions that aren't supported by her words. If anything, she's saying that the way the market has evolved to play into male fantasies may affect how gamers see and interact with RL women. She never implied that this was in any way intentional on the developers' part, and is in fact only suggesting that this idea be considered by both developers and players (she's "suggesting" because she sure as fuck can't force anyone to consider anything).
Chaos: "In your own post, you're implying that gamers "want" to abuse women. That's silly. "
Really, Chaos? Really? This is where you lose me. Why is nobody ready to acknowledge that GTA didn't just popularize killing hookers, it popularizing BEING PROUD of killing hookers? It's the "Tee hee! Look how naughty I'm being!" rush that made the series a hit, distilled to its most recognizable and popular instance. Again, it's not SJWs or the mainstream media that made hooker-killing a meme, it's gamers. And it's a trend we can see has spread to many other games. Heck, I found a plethora of videos featuring unironic, gleeful, and often overtly distasteful killing of strippers in Hitman Absolution alone (you know, the game "nobody kills the strippers in").
One difference between you and me is that you see the suggestion that gamers like killing hookers as a personal attack ("It's wrong and disgusting!") whereas I think it honestly doesn't matter. I don't give a fuck if some guys get a rush out of playing out misogynistic fantasies in video games. Heck, I don't even think it necessarily means they're misogynists. I, for one, very much like tits in my games and will happily enjoy unrealistic and exploitative eye candy, perhaps partially because part of the "escape from reality" aspect of video games is that I can ogle freely while I wouldn't do that IRL (I have FAR greater respect for women who exist in reality than I do for characters that were created to amuse me. Again, video games aren't real life).
Chaos: "^ that's fucking psycho logic right there."
Yes, it is. But Sarkeesian never said that.
khalid
Unelected Mod
- 14,071
- 6,775
You claim to not care, but Anita clearly does and thinks it causes misogyny.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,841
I played GTA quite a bit with a bunch of guys in the military. Everyone did it once or twice sure, not because of any rush but just because of how absurd the whole thing was. The objective of the hookers wasn't to kill them, it was to simulate sex with them in order to restore HP. As you do. This happens to be a game where you can kill people. Thus you can kill the hookers.
I played games with some rough dudes and I can't remember anyone singling out women or hookers specifically.
So Sarkeesian didn't say that gameplay possibilities are "implicitly encouraged"? (which no, it doesn't exist, encouragement is by its nature explicit) Sure sounds like the crux of the argument. A game has hookers. You can kill the hookers. Thus, the game encourages you to kill hookers. That's literally psycho.
I think you are vastly underplaying the complexity of game design. Anywhere else that might fly, but you're on a board where people have played hundreds, maybe thousands, of games and abused them to the point of insanity. To be here and say that developers go into every game with a clear picture of how they want players to interact with the world and then achieve that, that's just fantasy.
I don't see how you can say she didn't imply that it was intentional on the developers part. You're saying that developers don't have interactions in their games that weren't intended or encouraged, but at the same time saying they aren't intentionally including horrific prostitute murder mini-games as an exercise in virtual-interactive misogyny, but it definitely is misogyny on the part of the players to engage in these situations, and that developers know their audience, but that they don't support these concepts intentionally. That's some loopty-loop logic bro. Occam's razor tells me that it is much more likely that when developing sandbox games taking place in a criminal underworld setting, you are likely for players to have interactions that you didn't necessarily predict but also don't necessarily want to prohibit due to the governing design philosophy of open-world architecture.
I played games with some rough dudes and I can't remember anyone singling out women or hookers specifically.
So Sarkeesian didn't say that gameplay possibilities are "implicitly encouraged"? (which no, it doesn't exist, encouragement is by its nature explicit) Sure sounds like the crux of the argument. A game has hookers. You can kill the hookers. Thus, the game encourages you to kill hookers. That's literally psycho.
I think you are vastly underplaying the complexity of game design. Anywhere else that might fly, but you're on a board where people have played hundreds, maybe thousands, of games and abused them to the point of insanity. To be here and say that developers go into every game with a clear picture of how they want players to interact with the world and then achieve that, that's just fantasy.
I don't see how you can say she didn't imply that it was intentional on the developers part. You're saying that developers don't have interactions in their games that weren't intended or encouraged, but at the same time saying they aren't intentionally including horrific prostitute murder mini-games as an exercise in virtual-interactive misogyny, but it definitely is misogyny on the part of the players to engage in these situations, and that developers know their audience, but that they don't support these concepts intentionally. That's some loopty-loop logic bro. Occam's razor tells me that it is much more likely that when developing sandbox games taking place in a criminal underworld setting, you are likely for players to have interactions that you didn't necessarily predict but also don't necessarily want to prohibit due to the governing design philosophy of open-world architecture.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Khalid: "You claim to not care, but Anita clearly does and thinks it causes misogyny."
Citation needed. Just kidding, as if you'd ever back up something you said with facts! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Chaos: "(which no, it doesn't exist, encouragement is by its nature explicit)"
*sigh...* So what the heck was the point of that whole passage I guided you through, sentence by sentence? Why did she even choose to include all that? What purpose does it serve if, to you, it's all completely meaningless due to what you deem to be poor use of the word "encourage"? If she was trying to "trick" people, she wouldn't have made a clear and detailed explanation as to what she was talking about. She would have said "These games encourage killing hookers" and left it at that. This is where we aren't going to be able to find any middle ground. I find your obtuse dismissal of the entirely reasonable things she says preposterous. "It doesn't matter what she actually said or how she explained herself! I say 'encourage' means this and she used it in a way I don't approve of so she's being dishonest!" You drastically underestimate the organic and flexible nature of the English language. Can you even read a metaphor without being offended at words not meaning what they're "supposed" to mean? People accuse Sarkeesian of cherry-picking, and you've seemingly based your assessment of her dishonesty on an unconventional (if entirely logical within the provided context) use of a single word.
Chaos: "I think you are vastly underplaying the complexity of game design. Anywhere else that might fly, but you're on a board where people have played hundreds, maybe thousands, of games and abused them to the point of insanity. To be here and say that developers go into every game with a clear picture of how they want players to interact with the world and then achieve that, that's just fantasy. "
Dude, we haven't been talking about people min-maxing by exploiting subtle bugs or developer oversights. We've been talking about gamers killing hookers. Have I been lying when I said this is a gamer-created meme? Were you there when Fanaskin challenged me by claiming killing taxi drivers was just as popular (he even provided evidence, bless his heart), when the minimal amount of effort showed there was no comparison whatsoever? You're downplaying this with "Yeah, some guys might do that once or twice... so?" No, Chaos, we have all known for years that hooker-killing is proudly paraded as part of what makes GTA fun. We know it, developers know it, and obviously Sarkeesian knows it. The fact that you can hand-wave a popular cultural phenomenon while putting tremendous significance on a minor semantics disagreement boggles my mind.
Chaos: "I don't see how you can say she didn't imply that it was intentional on the developers part."
Let me clarify: Anita doesn't care specifically about what goes into games, she cares about the real-world effect that game content can have on people. She believes the way women are portrayed in games can effect how people see and act towards women in real life. She does NOT believe developers are intentionally trying to have a negative effect on how women are seen and treated in real life. She DOES believe they intentionally appeal to gamers' desires, which is in no way surprising because THAT'S WHAT VIDEO GAMES DO. When you blow your enemies to pieces with over-the-top explosive firepower, you are satisfying a primal urge to powerfully and violently dominate, something we can't and shouldn't do in real life. I've loved a ton of violent games, but I have zero desire to ever gun down anybody in real life. Isn't that the very definition of deriving "perverse pleasures"? Whether you're shooting cops, ogling tits, killing hookers, blowing up cars or whatever, you are indulging in perverse pleasure. It doesn't make you a psychopath or a misogynist or a rapist or a murderer-in-the-making. It makes you a human being who lives in a time where we're spoiled with the means to satisfy fantasies we might otherwise have never realized we had. Anita's schtick is that she thinks this could have negative real-world effects. She wants people to think about that. That's it. That's all her words actually say.
There's a lot to criticize in her work. Again, in her latest video, she's judging games made in Japan in the 1980s from a modern feminist perspective, which is kind of silly. But you're being silly in the opposite direction, trying to dismiss even her valid points on the grounds of moral righteousness (while ignoring what we actually know about gamers and the game industry), or otherwise find a smoking gun (That word! That one word!) that will justify an unnecessary label. The only difference between Sarkeesian and any other pop critic with concerns about social issues is that she found something a lot of people are super-defensive about. They get offended and emotional and that compromises their ability to discuss the issue reasonably. She hurt their feelings so they want to get back at her, which kicks confirmation bias into high gear. At least, that's what I've been seeing.
Citation needed. Just kidding, as if you'd ever back up something you said with facts! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Chaos: "(which no, it doesn't exist, encouragement is by its nature explicit)"
*sigh...* So what the heck was the point of that whole passage I guided you through, sentence by sentence? Why did she even choose to include all that? What purpose does it serve if, to you, it's all completely meaningless due to what you deem to be poor use of the word "encourage"? If she was trying to "trick" people, she wouldn't have made a clear and detailed explanation as to what she was talking about. She would have said "These games encourage killing hookers" and left it at that. This is where we aren't going to be able to find any middle ground. I find your obtuse dismissal of the entirely reasonable things she says preposterous. "It doesn't matter what she actually said or how she explained herself! I say 'encourage' means this and she used it in a way I don't approve of so she's being dishonest!" You drastically underestimate the organic and flexible nature of the English language. Can you even read a metaphor without being offended at words not meaning what they're "supposed" to mean? People accuse Sarkeesian of cherry-picking, and you've seemingly based your assessment of her dishonesty on an unconventional (if entirely logical within the provided context) use of a single word.
Chaos: "I think you are vastly underplaying the complexity of game design. Anywhere else that might fly, but you're on a board where people have played hundreds, maybe thousands, of games and abused them to the point of insanity. To be here and say that developers go into every game with a clear picture of how they want players to interact with the world and then achieve that, that's just fantasy. "
Dude, we haven't been talking about people min-maxing by exploiting subtle bugs or developer oversights. We've been talking about gamers killing hookers. Have I been lying when I said this is a gamer-created meme? Were you there when Fanaskin challenged me by claiming killing taxi drivers was just as popular (he even provided evidence, bless his heart), when the minimal amount of effort showed there was no comparison whatsoever? You're downplaying this with "Yeah, some guys might do that once or twice... so?" No, Chaos, we have all known for years that hooker-killing is proudly paraded as part of what makes GTA fun. We know it, developers know it, and obviously Sarkeesian knows it. The fact that you can hand-wave a popular cultural phenomenon while putting tremendous significance on a minor semantics disagreement boggles my mind.
Chaos: "I don't see how you can say she didn't imply that it was intentional on the developers part."
Let me clarify: Anita doesn't care specifically about what goes into games, she cares about the real-world effect that game content can have on people. She believes the way women are portrayed in games can effect how people see and act towards women in real life. She does NOT believe developers are intentionally trying to have a negative effect on how women are seen and treated in real life. She DOES believe they intentionally appeal to gamers' desires, which is in no way surprising because THAT'S WHAT VIDEO GAMES DO. When you blow your enemies to pieces with over-the-top explosive firepower, you are satisfying a primal urge to powerfully and violently dominate, something we can't and shouldn't do in real life. I've loved a ton of violent games, but I have zero desire to ever gun down anybody in real life. Isn't that the very definition of deriving "perverse pleasures"? Whether you're shooting cops, ogling tits, killing hookers, blowing up cars or whatever, you are indulging in perverse pleasure. It doesn't make you a psychopath or a misogynist or a rapist or a murderer-in-the-making. It makes you a human being who lives in a time where we're spoiled with the means to satisfy fantasies we might otherwise have never realized we had. Anita's schtick is that she thinks this could have negative real-world effects. She wants people to think about that. That's it. That's all her words actually say.
There's a lot to criticize in her work. Again, in her latest video, she's judging games made in Japan in the 1980s from a modern feminist perspective, which is kind of silly. But you're being silly in the opposite direction, trying to dismiss even her valid points on the grounds of moral righteousness (while ignoring what we actually know about gamers and the game industry), or otherwise find a smoking gun (That word! That one word!) that will justify an unnecessary label. The only difference between Sarkeesian and any other pop critic with concerns about social issues is that she found something a lot of people are super-defensive about. They get offended and emotional and that compromises their ability to discuss the issue reasonably. She hurt their feelings so they want to get back at her, which kicks confirmation bias into high gear. At least, that's what I've been seeing.
- Status