cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited August 2013
I wouldn't expect any game to be as good as NMH without using a Wii remote. By the by, some stores have it. I saw it at GS when I went to get Project Diva.
cj iwakura on
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I don't think we should be calling reviewers (or anyone else opposed to this game) prudes. But I don't think we should be implying that people who are okay with the game are perverts into some "sick shit".
Frankly, I don't think this thread is the place for discussing video game morality. As I'm sure people over in the Splinter Cell or Battlefield threads wouldn't appreciate it if I went in there telling them how fucked up they are for playing a game where you stab, shoot, blow up, and slit the throats of dozens, or even hundreds of people.
Actually if you read the thread for Uncharted 3, the fact Nathan Drake kills a ton of people is actually an extremely contentious point about the game. Battlefield/CoD games have been criticised for being jingoistic and the single players borderline propaganda (see Extra Credits for a good discussion on that).
I am always interested in the stuff Suda 51 does, but like many things I have a limit and the gigolo stuff, aside from adding nothing to the game from what I can tell, is sailing well over it for me.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Personally attacking me is not a legitimate criticism of a game.
+1
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
When it comes to Uncharted, people don't have an issue murdering hundreds of people. Their issue is with the narrative dissonance. Nobody in the Uncharted thread is discussing the morality of killing virtual men for pleasure, and the conversation probably wouldn't be welcome.
If we want to have a discussion/debate on sexuality, objectification, and gender roles in games, maybe start a thread.
So what's the verdict on this game? I was contemplating getting it but I'm not sure and I honestly don't want to spend a full $60 for a game I might not like.
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
Heard about that, not seeing the massive deal other than it being perverse. Then again, I played an RPG where you have to manage a spa to regulate affection for the girl taking a bath (Agarest War 2). I can see how people would fuss over it, but it's a game made in Japan; they have a nintendo game where you check for witches by feeling them up.
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
Heard about that, not seeing the massive deal other than it being perverse. Then again, I played an RPG where you have to manage a spa to regulate affection for the girl taking a bath (Agarest War 2). I can see how people would fuss over it, but it's a game made in Japan; they have a nintendo game where you check for witches by feeling them up.
Sexual content is less taboo in Japan than it is in America. Games with risque content such as that often get C if not B ratings. Add blood and gore and you get instant Ds if not Z ratings.
Total opposite here.
Not saying I'm a fan of it, but they don't make nearly as big a deal of it as we do.
Heard about that, not seeing the massive deal other than it being perverse. Then again, I played an RPG where you have to manage a spa to regulate affection for the girl taking a bath (Agarest War 2). I can see how people would fuss over it, but it's a game made in Japan; they have a nintendo game where you check for witches by feeling them up.
Here's a handy chart:
Not perverse: Wanting to have sex with a girl you're dating (or even just meeting)
Perverse: Pretending that this is not the case so you can gawp at her while she is unaware
Not perverse: Taking a bath with someone who is up for it/ into it
Perverse: Finding a way to look at people in the bath without them knowing about it
etc etc
Apparently consent is an alien idea for many game designers.
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited August 2013
played a bit of it
the gameplay is absolute dogshit - its staggeringly 2 dimensional, and in a world where bayonetta has been out for 4 fkin years they should have tried at least taking some notes
the camera is terrible
the controls are also horrible - apparently doing proper environment collision is hard?
i am not usually bothered by tearing, but the tearing on this was unbelievably egregious
dont touch unless u really like suda 51 shit
surrealitycheck on
+1
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited August 2013
Hmm.
While I think Rorus was wrong for coming in the way he did and I don't think talking down to people is all that effective at getting your point across...hmm yeah...after hearing about this stuff I'll probably pass.
the gameplay is absolute dogshit - its staggeringly 2 dimensional, and in a world where bayonetta has been out for 4 fkin years they should have tried at least taking some notes
the camera is terrible
the controls are also horrible - apparently doing proper environment collision is hard?
i am not usually bothered by tearing, but the tearing on this was unbelievably egregious
dont touch unless u really like suda 51 shit
What do you mean by 2 dimensional? I was watching some gameplay right now and I'm getting a big No More Heroes vibe from it. Is it all mashing one button or something?
0
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
When it comes to Uncharted, people don't have an issue murdering hundreds of people. Their issue is with the narrative dissonance. Nobody in the Uncharted thread is discussing the morality of killing virtual men for pleasure, and the conversation probably wouldn't be welcome.
If we want to have a discussion/debate on sexuality, objectification, and gender roles in games, maybe start a thread.
You realize that when these discussions have pertained to a game in the past, the moderators have made it absolutely clear that you don't get to dictate what is or isn't actually acceptable to talk about in a thread right? Also yes, some people do actually have an issue not only with the narrative dissonance by the whole "murdering hundreds of people" part. I in fact would be one of them, even if I enjoy all three games immensely it's possible to think both are actually quite absurd and that one creates the problem for the other. It's like with Tomb Raider, that game was fantastic but it had the same problem Uncharted did with Lara being upset over her first "kill" then literally 5 seconds later headshotting 5 guys for +15 EXP! each. This conversation was not only common, but was more than welcome so your argument is completely without merit. As it was a part of the game, it's a perfectly legitimate and common point of discussion or criticism - exactly what threads for any game are actually for.
Some people need to get over the idea that threads are walled gardens where only positive (?) discussion they want to read is permitted. If you don't like the fact that these things are elements of the game that people may actually discuss or that reviews will actually penalize the game for (and it seems many have), then you just have to deal with it because the game makes it a legitimate topic. In the Dragon's Crown thread the art style of the female characters was routinely criticized by many and people there were like "God, just take it elsewhere" only to get told "Actually, it's perfectly legit topic because it's about the game so it stays". So really, you're going to lose this right away so don't bother trying to tell people not to criticise this element of the game: They will and it deserves it.
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
Yeah all of the footage I have seen seems to fit with the description that Rorus gave and frankly, I'm not even sure how this is defensible and really I have to ask: Does anyone actually feel this adds anything to the game? Because I don't really see what it adds at all. The gameplay itself looks alright and I don't expect Bayonetta levels of depth (honestly, not everything needs that) but I wonder if they should have not bothered with the creeper minigame and instead focused more on polishing the gameplay or making more levels or something. I just don't see what it adds to the game except yet another example of how women are treated as sexual objects in video games and nothing much else.
I really liked NMH, NMH2 and I still feel Killer 7 is one of the more interesting experiments in video games I've seen. As I said, I don't mind some strangeness and general weird shit in games (As another example, I think Deadly Premonition is a terrible game that everyone should play) but honestly this is one thing I look and go "What is the point here?". From everything I've read it seems to combine this with poop gameplay, which is a shame but even if the gameplay was good I just don't think I could bother playing through those stupid gigolo segments.
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
wait that stuff is actual gameplay you engage in and not just a few dumb juvenile cutscenes?
ok I'm hopping off this train again, that sounds pretty bad
Daypigeon on
+1
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
wait that stuff is actual gameplay you engage in and not just a few dumb juvenile cutscenes?
ok I'm hopping off this train again, that sounds pretty bad
Yes, Polygons Review has a decent summary:
But the final insult, the aspect that takes Killer Is Dead from the annals of poorly executed late-generation action games to something truly awful, is the rampant sexism and objectification throughout.
The most disturbing examples of this happen between story missions. As you progress, you unlock the "option" to play Gigolo scenarios, where you seduce women by literally leering at them for as long as possible while they're not looking. After working up enough nerve, you give them presents to win their "heart." If you get caught staring too much, you'll get slapped in the face and have to try again.
I say "have to" because Killer Is Dead locks a number of sub-weapons for your mechanical arm behind the manipulated affections of the women in the gigolo missions, relegating it to what is apparently the most intrusive form of peacocking ever conceived by aspiring pickup artists. I suppose you could beat Killer Is Dead without these spoils of douchebaggery, but it would make an otherwise dull action game even more boring.
The whole thing is crass, exploitative and gross — the women you're picking up desperately hound you multiple times per mission to let you know it's time to play the minigame again, and if you do it enough times, you're awarded achievements for making them "your prisoner body and soul." Killer Is Dead is deeply misogynistic — even stepping outside of the overwhelming ick-factor of the gigolo aspects, every female character in the game exists to be rescued, killed, gawked at or f**ked for an in-game item.
It is notable that you don't HAVE to do these, but some of the better weapons and similar are apparently hidden behind doing it. Notable extra points for calling the women "Targets" in this mode as well.
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
wait that stuff is actual gameplay you engage in and not just a few dumb juvenile cutscenes?
ok I'm hopping off this train again, that sounds pretty bad
Yes, Polygons Review has a decent summary:
But the final insult, the aspect that takes Killer Is Dead from the annals of poorly executed late-generation action games to something truly awful, is the rampant sexism and objectification throughout.
The most disturbing examples of this happen between story missions. As you progress, you unlock the "option" to play Gigolo scenarios, where you seduce women by literally leering at them for as long as possible while they're not looking. After working up enough nerve, you give them presents to win their "heart." If you get caught staring too much, you'll get slapped in the face and have to try again.
I say "have to" because Killer Is Dead locks a number of sub-weapons for your mechanical arm behind the manipulated affections of the women in the gigolo missions, relegating it to what is apparently the most intrusive form of peacocking ever conceived by aspiring pickup artists. I suppose you could beat Killer Is Dead without these spoils of douchebaggery, but it would make an otherwise dull action game even more boring.
The whole thing is crass, exploitative and gross — the women you're picking up desperately hound you multiple times per mission to let you know it's time to play the minigame again, and if you do it enough times, you're awarded achievements for making them "your prisoner body and soul." Killer Is Dead is deeply misogynistic — even stepping outside of the overwhelming ick-factor of the gigolo aspects, every female character in the game exists to be rescued, killed, gawked at or f**ked for an in-game item.
It is notable that you don't HAVE to do these, but some of the better weapons and similar are apparently hidden behind doing it. Notable extra points for calling the women "Targets" in this mode as well.
Also, I think it's kinda funny that I came home last night and two packages were waiting for me: Killer is Dead and Hatsune Miku Project Diva F: two games that could not be more different. And also that Project Diva is like ten times harder than the fucking assassin killing game!
There was literally one review off the top of my head that mentioned the controversial part of Dragon's Crown to a degree that it actually had any kind of real impact on the score.
I mean, the Gametrailers review show some extended clips of the missions and it looks as the reviewer describes. Other review sites like ign, destructoid, polygon, and so forth correlate with Gametrailers, so maybe it's a dark conspiracy to keep the Grasshopper down. I'm doubting that, as subpar as some of those sites tend to be.
I'm sorry to leap in here guns-ablazing, but people need to be a little more aware and not reflexively ball up and hide when their game is legitimately criticized.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
What? "Literal eyefuck" means something very different on the internet. I'm kind of relieved.
You realize that when these discussions have pertained to a game in the past, the moderators have made it absolutely clear that you don't get to dictate what is or isn't actually acceptable to talk about in a thread right?
Also yes, some people do actually have an issue not only with the narrative dissonance by the whole "murdering hundreds of people" part. I in fact would be one of them, even if I enjoy all three games immensely it's possible to think both are actually quite absurd and that one creates the problem for the other. It's like with Tomb Raider, that game was fantastic but it had the same problem Uncharted did with Lara being upset over her first "kill" then literally 5 seconds later headshotting 5 guys for +15 EXP! each.
Again, you're still just complaining about the narrative dissonance between the characters personality in the cutscenes with their horrific actions in gameplay. You obviously don't have any problems with the morality of wanting to murder virtual people for your own pleasure, or else, you would not have enjoyed the game's immensely.
Coming into this thread to let people know what sick fucks they are for enjoying their creeper simulator would be the equivalent of going into the Uncharted or Tomb Raider threads to call them sick fucks for enjoying their murder simulators. They would tell you to fuck off.
And I know game threads aren't required to be limited to positive talk about the game, but I don't really understand why there needs to be so much discussion about it from people who have no desire to play it. I can understand if you perhaps liked Suda 51 in the past, but are upset that he "crossed a line." But if you don't like Suda 51 games, you think Killer is Dead is tasteless, and have no desire to play it, why bother talking about it?
And if you did like Suda 51 before, you did notice that his main characters routinely objectified woman, right? You were okay with it as a passive observer, but became sickened when it became interactive?
And if you did like Suda 51 before, you did notice that his main characters routinely objectified woman, right? You were okay with it as a passive observer, but became sickened when it became interactive?
There's a difference between a narrative having sexist, gross characters in it and the narrative itself being sexist and gross.
+1
Options
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
edited August 2013
as someone is who is pretty moderate on the situation.
I don't mind raunchy at times and I feel people should be allowed to it if they want.
But at the same time I'm getting older and the older I get the more I just feel that we should generally be past a lot of this stuff.
Its like when I was 14, I loved American Pie. Now. Not so much.
Not to mention in the way its achieved. I mean you're basically peeking at chicks though x-ray glasses. Once again, I don't mind sexy or sex humor. But that isn't really sexy or funny, just kind of tasteless and crude.
I mean I'm not going to judge people for playing as I was interested in the game before all this stuff and I don't think this thread needs to be invaded by the social justice army. But I do think these things require some consideration.
And if you did like Suda 51 before, you did notice that his main characters routinely objectified woman, right? You were okay with it as a passive observer, but became sickened when it became interactive?
There's a difference between a narrative having sexist, gross characters in it and the narrative itself being sexist and gross.
You'd have a point there if the objectification in previous games were limited to individual characters, but the narrative of those games constantly portrayed female characters as objects to oggle, and prizes to be won. So yes, the narratives themselves were sexist and gross. The only thing that changed is the player gets in on it.
And if you did like Suda 51 before, you did notice that his main characters routinely objectified woman, right? You were okay with it as a passive observer, but became sickened when it became interactive?
There's a difference between a narrative having sexist, gross characters in it and the narrative itself being sexist and gross.
You'd have a point there if the objectification in previous games were limited to individual characters, but the narrative of those games constantly portrayed female characters as objects to oggle, and prizes to be won. So yes, the narratives themselves were sexist and gross. The only thing that changed is the player gets in on it.
yeah, probably
I remember thinking no more heroes was actually a little subversive in regards to its incredibly wince-inducing protagonist and his journey to get laid, but judging by Suda's output since then I guess that was being dumb and reading too much into it. Oh well~
If people want to stomp all over the threads of any game that gets in the way of their war against cheesecake and damsels then I guess they're free to do that here. Just don't let me catch any of you rolling your eyes and saying how out of touch and backwards politicians, religious leaders and news commentators are when they bemoan violence in video games and advocate censorship.
Either you believe that video games are free to have whatever content that they want, and that they are not responsible for society's ills or you don't. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to call ripping heads off of bodies, going on shooting sprees in the middle of major cities and dicing people into giblets with your sword good clean fun and then have conniption fits because a game made you look at pixelated, polygonal cleavage.
If people want to stomp all over the threads of any game that gets in the way of their war against cheesecake and damsels then I guess they're free to do that here. Just don't let me catch any of you rolling your eyes and saying how out of touch and backwards politicians, religious leaders and news commentators are when they bemoan violence in video games and advocate censorship.
Either you believe that video games are free to have whatever content that they want, and that they are not responsible for society's ills or you don't. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to call ripping heads off of bodies, going on shooting sprees in the middle of major cities and dicing people into giblets with your sword good clean fun and then have conniption fits because a game made you look at pixelated, polygonal cleavage.
Actually I do get to have it both ways:
a) Video games are not responsible for an increase in gun-related violence.
b) Video games are responsible for propagating the culture of misogyny that very much exists.
Also, describing a minigame that has you purposefully stalk and ogle a woman for a reward as "made you look at pixelated, polygonal cleavage" is a bullshit reduction.
Now, maybe Suda has an artistic reason for doing this. I don't know. Maybe he's doing some kind of post-post-post-post-post modern thing here. Maybe he wants to flaunt how ducking creepy this is to make the audience say "yeah, holy shit, I never want to be like that!"
Or maybe he's fed up with the increasing demand for social progress and this is his way of not only eschewing the repeated cries by activists and critics that games are still terribly misogynistic.
I don't know and I'd really rather not speculate on his intent. All we can do is examine to product or art itself. And what we have here are some stalky Peeping Tom segments that treat women like sex objects. That's pretty much the textbook definition of misogyny. It's not even up for interpretation and it's not a matter of opinion: The objective of these missions is to have sex and you do so by actively creeping on these women.
Do I believe you have to reject the entire game as a result? No. But the criticisms are valid, are not prudish, and are not inconsistent with a refutation that games are murder spree catalysts. It sexualizes women and does so in a rather explicit manner that forces the player to emulate behaviors generally considered bad.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
+5
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
What we need to speculate on is how much of this was his doing, IF ANY. Suda has had progressively less and less to do with each of 'his' games since No More Heroes.
A quick glance of the game's Wikipedia page lists him only as a writer but his entry lists him as director and writer. Anyone have a list of the game's credits?
0
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
What we need to speculate on is how much of this was his doing, IF ANY. Suda has had progressively less and less to do with each of 'his' games since No More Heroes.
What we need to speculate on is how much of this was his doing, IF ANY. Suda has had progressively less and less to do with each of 'his' games since No More Heroes.
a) Video games are not responsible for an increase in gun-related violence.
b) Video games are responsible for propagating the culture of misogyny that very much exists.
If you want to compare a videogame's glorification of violence against their glorification of negative gender politics, then you do that. They are guilty of both.
If you want to compare a videogame's capacity to create violence in real life versus its capacity to create negative sexual actions in reality, then you do that. They are innocent of both.
But please don't try to compare a videogame's capacity to create violence in real life versus a videogame's glorification of sexuality. It is a dishonest arguement that pretends to create a 1-to-1 comparison when there isn't one. If you consider a videogame's depiction of sexual politics socially problematic then yes, you must also do the same of violence. At least, if one chooses to be into the whole intellectual consistency thing. There's no court or culture on this planet (okay, I should walk that back, some of those third world places can get pretty wacky!) that will consider ogling a woman more heinous than murder.
Also, describing a minigame that has you purposefully stalk and ogle a woman for a reward as "made you look at pixelated, polygonal cleavage" is a bullshit reduction.
May I ask what your stance on "eyefucking" happens to be? I would imagine that if reductionism is such a problem, then exaggeration would also have to be addressed?
Now, maybe Suda has an artistic reason for doing this. I don't know. Maybe he's doing some kind of post-post-post-post-post modern thing here. Maybe he wants to flaunt how ducking creepy this is to make the audience say "yeah, holy shit, I never want to be like that!"
Or maybe he's fed up with the increasing demand for social progress and this is his way of not only eschewing the repeated cries by activists and critics that games are still terribly misogynistic.
I don't know and I'd really rather not speculate on his intent. All we can do is examine to product or art itself. And what we have here are some stalky Peeping Tom segments that treat women like sex objects. That's pretty much the textbook definition of misogyny. It's not even up for interpretation and it's not a matter of opinion: The objective of these missions is to have sex and you do so by actively creeping on these women.
Do I believe you have to reject the entire game as a result? No. But the criticisms are valid, are not prudish, and are not inconsistent with a refutation that games are murder spree catalysts. It sexualizes women and does so in a rather explicit manner that forces the player to emulate behaviors generally considered bad.
Videogames (and I mean this in the sense of individual products, not as an industry as a whole) much like any piece of media, are not for everybody and have no moral obligation to be otherwise. Suda can make the game he wants and in a free society, the market will decide whether what he has created has value or doesn't (which I guess is great news for you! We all know how Suda's games sell!).
Consumers can have the opinion that they please on these games, but if professional websites and reviewers who would've staunchly stood by the ideas of freedom of speech and expression during a controversy that doesn't involve sexual politics in games, or at least would've separated their views on a game's plot or creative choices from the overall quality of the experience have chosen this game as their line in the sand? Then I think that is a very important break from what the standard has been thus far and would be one worth questioning.
Is this the part where you realize freedom of speech means he gets to make his creepy fucking game, and everyone else gets to refer to it as a creepy fucking game, or is that revelation farther down the line for you?
+1
Options
cj iwakuraThe Rhythm RegentBears The Name FreedomRegistered Userregular
edited August 2013
It doesn't mean people who play said game are creepy by association, though.
I also think that makes it more of a game with creepy elements. Persona 4 Golden has some questionable stuff in it too, hardly anyone goes crazy over that.
cj iwakura on
0
Options
fearsomepirateI ate a pickle once.Registered Userregular
Or maybe he's fed up with the increasing demand for social progress and this is his way of not only eschewing the repeated cries by activists and critics that games are still terribly misogynistic.
Or maybe, just like America, there are lots of sad sacks in Japan who will never get any closer to speaking to an actual woman than looking at one on a screen. And maybe some of the sad sacks in Japan are so sad that they don't even dare to fantasize about sex; they just fantasize about looking at a girl when she's not looking back. Why don't they jack it to porn like real men?
And what we have here are some stalky Peeping Tom segments that treat women like sex objects.
I much prefer the stalky murder segments in games like Splinter Cell, or the not-so-stalky Kill All the Mans segments in Call of Duty, but to each his own.
fearsomepirate on
Nobody makes me bleed my own blood...nobody.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
a) Video games are not responsible for an increase in gun-related violence.
b) Video games are responsible for propagating the culture of misogyny that very much exists.
If you want to compare a videogame's glorification of violence against their glorification of negative gender politics, then you do that. They are guilty of both.
If you want to compare a videogame's capacity to create violence in real life versus its capacity to create negative sexual actions in reality, then you do that. They are innocent of both.
But please don't try to compare a videogame's capacity to create violence in real life versus a videogame's glorification of sexuality. It is a dishonest arguement that pretends to create a 1-to-1 comparison when there isn't one. If you consider a videogame's depiction of sexual politics socially problematic then yes, you must also do the same of violence. At least, if one chooses to be into the whole intellectual consistency thing. There's no court or culture on this planet (okay, I should walk that back, some of those third world places can get pretty wacky!) that will consider ogling a woman more heinous than murder.
Also, describing a minigame that has you purposefully stalk and ogle a woman for a reward as "made you look at pixelated, polygonal cleavage" is a bullshit reduction.
May I ask what is your stance on "eyefucking" happens to be? I would imagine that if reductionism is such a problem, then exaggeration would also have to be addressed?
Now, maybe Suda has an artistic reason for doing this. I don't know. Maybe he's doing some kind of post-post-post-post-post modern thing here. Maybe he wants to flaunt how ducking creepy this is to make the audience say "yeah, holy shit, I never want to be like that!"
Or maybe he's fed up with the increasing demand for social progress and this is his way of not only eschewing the repeated cries by activists and critics that games are still terribly misogynistic.
I don't know and I'd really rather not speculate on his intent. All we can do is examine to product or art itself. And what we have here are some stalky Peeping Tom segments that treat women like sex objects. That's pretty much the textbook definition of misogyny. It's not even up for interpretation and it's not a matter of opinion: The objective of these missions is to have sex and you do so by actively creeping on these women.
Do I believe you have to reject the entire game as a result? No. But the criticisms are valid, are not prudish, and are not inconsistent with a refutation that games are murder spree catalysts. It sexualizes women and does so in a rather explicit manner that forces the player to emulate behaviors generally considered bad.
Videogames (and I mean this in the sense of individual products, not as an industry as a whole) much like any piece of media, are not for everybody and have no moral obligation to be otherwise. Suda can make the game he wants and in a free society, the market will decide whether what he has created has value or doesn't (which I guess is great news for you! We all know how Suda's games sell!).
Consumers can have the opinion that they please on these games, but if professional websites and reviewers who would've staunchly stood by the ideas of freedom of speech and expression during a controversy that doesn't involve sexual politics in games, or at least would've separated their views on a game's plot or creative choices from the overall quality of the experience have chosen this game as their line in the sand? Then I think that is a very important break from what the standard has been thus far and would be one worth questioning.
You don't seem to understand what "freedom of speech" means. It means you are free to say what you think. You are free to speak your mind. It does not protect you from criticism, at least not from the criticism of your peers. Calling these websites and reviewers "professional" means diddly squat. They have no particular duty above a consumer's duty - which is none. There is no duty to protect art, or to stay out of controversy.
The day the federal government opens up a video game review blog and starts lambasting games that they consider against American ideals (or whatever country you are from), then you can sit there and preach to me about the duty reviewers have to protect an artist's freedom of speech or expression. But right now, your argument holds no water. Journalists are under no obligation to coddle Suda or any particular gamer who thinks this kind of content is not misogynistic in nature.
Now, for my part, I just played two of the Gigolo missions. Are they creepy? Yes, they are. Are they as bad as I expected? Not really. But everything has context. For instance, in the first season of the TV series Smallville, Clark Kent uses his newly discovered x-ray vision to try and spy on Lana while she is changing. Is that creepy? Is that misogynistic? Yes and yes. But in context, it's just there to paint a picture of who Clark is and what he was struggling with at the time. Relating this back to Killer is Dead and Mondo, well, it's hard to see what these Gigolo missions represent other than gratuitous objectification of women. If, once I finish the game, they are somehow contextually justified, then hooray! and if not then they aren't. They currently stand as creepy little intrusions into the game. That's my impression and that's apparently the impression of dozens of other people. I have no obligation, and they have no obligion, to lie to uphold "freedom of speech." Criticism of art is as much speech as the art itself.
Christ, I want to slap myself for even writing that last sentence. While true, I basically find review and critique to be bullshit. But even so, the point stands.
It doesn't mean people who play said game are creepy by association, though.
I also think that makes it more of a game with creepy elements. Persona 4 Golden has some questionable stuff in it too, hardly anyone goes crazy over that.
Agreed. But I think it also raises a good talking point and a teachable moment. The moral that gamers should take from this controversy is: "it's wrong to go a bar and stare women up and down while wearing x-ray glasses."
You don't seem to understand what "freedom of speech" means. It means you are free to say what you think. You are free to speak your mind. It does not protect you from criticism, at least not from the criticism of your peers. Calling these websites and reviewers "professional" means diddly squat. They have no particular duty above a consumer's duty - which is none. There is no duty to protect art, or to stay out of controversy.
You and Jeddy both need to show me the part of my post history on this thread that I said this game can never be criticized, because I just read it over and I'm not seeing it. What I have done however is call into question a bias on the part of reviewers that I consider against the norm and wonder aloud if that bias must be considered when considering their reviews for this game. Reviewers can be as petty and biased as they like, yes. They have no obligation to be able to take a dispassionate stance on games they may not like the content of, yes. They can use their position as a bully pulpit to try and further their political ideas, yes. However if that is the case, do I as a potential consumer not have the right to take these biases into account and contextualize their reviews accordingly?
We've come full circle. I entered this the thread on the fence about a game was interested in, asking if I should adjust the score up a point or two, and got my head bitten off for it.
The day the federal government opens up a video game review blog and starts lambasting games that they consider against American ideals (or whatever country you are from), then you can sit there and preach to me about the duty reviewers have to protect an artist's freedom of speech or expression. But right now, your argument holds no water. Journalists are under no obligation to coddle Suda or any particular gamer who thinks this kind of content is not misogynistic in nature.
This isn't about the ideals of a country or a duty to protect. It's a question of bias and consistency.
Now, for my part, I just played two of the Gigolo missions. Are they creepy? Yes, they are. Are they as bad as I expected? Not really. But everything has context. For instance, in the first season of the TV series Smallville, Clark Kent uses his newly discovered x-ray vision to try and spy on Lana while she is changing. Is that creepy? Is that misogynistic? Yes and yes. But in context, it's just there to paint a picture of who Clark is and what he was struggling with at the time. Relating this back to Killer is Dead and Mondo, well, it's hard to see what these Gigolo missions represent other than gratuitous objectification of women. If, once I finish the game, they are somehow contextually justified, then hooray! and if not then they aren't. They currently stand as creepy little intrusions into the game. That's my impression and that's apparently the impression of dozens of other people. I have no obligation, and they have no obligion, to lie to uphold "freedom of speech." Criticism of art is as much speech as the art itself.
Christ, I want to slap myself for even writing that last sentence. While true, I basically find review and critique to be bullshit. But even so, the point stands.
I find contention with the idea that disagreeable content must be justified to exist, and at no point has this ever been about lying to protect anybody.
And with that, I will take my permanent leave. I do not want to be responsible for this thread being shut down and I have the hope that maybe at some point people who like the game will be able to discuss it without being accused of wanting to do away with women's suffrage. Please send any further arguments to my inbox. (Or you know, you could always take potshots at a guy who said he was backing out. Whatever gets you through the day. Yes, I DID need to come back to add this bit of jerk insurance.)
Posts
Actually if you read the thread for Uncharted 3, the fact Nathan Drake kills a ton of people is actually an extremely contentious point about the game. Battlefield/CoD games have been criticised for being jingoistic and the single players borderline propaganda (see Extra Credits for a good discussion on that).
I am always interested in the stuff Suda 51 does, but like many things I have a limit and the gigolo stuff, aside from adding nothing to the game from what I can tell, is sailing well over it for me.
Personally attacking me is not a legitimate criticism of a game.
Where are you getting this literal eyef'ing nonsense from?
If we want to have a discussion/debate on sexuality, objectification, and gender roles in games, maybe start a thread.
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
Go watch the IGN video review/ footage. I don't see another way to describe a "hot blood" meter that goes up when you ogle your 'date' when she is not looking. If she IS looking, you get penalized. Also, you have X-ray specs to look at her underwear (which somehow helps you choose gifts?). The end result of all this successful creeping is that you have sex with her. HA HA HOW WACKY :?
Heard about that, not seeing the massive deal other than it being perverse. Then again, I played an RPG where you have to manage a spa to regulate affection for the girl taking a bath (Agarest War 2). I can see how people would fuss over it, but it's a game made in Japan; they have a nintendo game where you check for witches by feeling them up.
XBL: GamingFreak5514
PSN: GamingFreak1234
Sexual content is less taboo in Japan than it is in America. Games with risque content such as that often get C if not B ratings. Add blood and gore and you get instant Ds if not Z ratings.
Total opposite here.
Not saying I'm a fan of it, but they don't make nearly as big a deal of it as we do.
Here's a handy chart:
Not perverse: Wanting to have sex with a girl you're dating (or even just meeting)
Perverse: Pretending that this is not the case so you can gawp at her while she is unaware
Not perverse: Taking a bath with someone who is up for it/ into it
Perverse: Finding a way to look at people in the bath without them knowing about it
etc etc
Apparently consent is an alien idea for many game designers.
the gameplay is absolute dogshit - its staggeringly 2 dimensional, and in a world where bayonetta has been out for 4 fkin years they should have tried at least taking some notes
the camera is terrible
the controls are also horrible - apparently doing proper environment collision is hard?
i am not usually bothered by tearing, but the tearing on this was unbelievably egregious
dont touch unless u really like suda 51 shit
While I think Rorus was wrong for coming in the way he did and I don't think talking down to people is all that effective at getting your point across...hmm yeah...after hearing about this stuff I'll probably pass.
You realize that when these discussions have pertained to a game in the past, the moderators have made it absolutely clear that you don't get to dictate what is or isn't actually acceptable to talk about in a thread right? Also yes, some people do actually have an issue not only with the narrative dissonance by the whole "murdering hundreds of people" part. I in fact would be one of them, even if I enjoy all three games immensely it's possible to think both are actually quite absurd and that one creates the problem for the other. It's like with Tomb Raider, that game was fantastic but it had the same problem Uncharted did with Lara being upset over her first "kill" then literally 5 seconds later headshotting 5 guys for +15 EXP! each. This conversation was not only common, but was more than welcome so your argument is completely without merit. As it was a part of the game, it's a perfectly legitimate and common point of discussion or criticism - exactly what threads for any game are actually for.
Some people need to get over the idea that threads are walled gardens where only positive (?) discussion they want to read is permitted. If you don't like the fact that these things are elements of the game that people may actually discuss or that reviews will actually penalize the game for (and it seems many have), then you just have to deal with it because the game makes it a legitimate topic. In the Dragon's Crown thread the art style of the female characters was routinely criticized by many and people there were like "God, just take it elsewhere" only to get told "Actually, it's perfectly legit topic because it's about the game so it stays". So really, you're going to lose this right away so don't bother trying to tell people not to criticise this element of the game: They will and it deserves it.
Yeah all of the footage I have seen seems to fit with the description that Rorus gave and frankly, I'm not even sure how this is defensible and really I have to ask: Does anyone actually feel this adds anything to the game? Because I don't really see what it adds at all. The gameplay itself looks alright and I don't expect Bayonetta levels of depth (honestly, not everything needs that) but I wonder if they should have not bothered with the creeper minigame and instead focused more on polishing the gameplay or making more levels or something. I just don't see what it adds to the game except yet another example of how women are treated as sexual objects in video games and nothing much else.
I really liked NMH, NMH2 and I still feel Killer 7 is one of the more interesting experiments in video games I've seen. As I said, I don't mind some strangeness and general weird shit in games (As another example, I think Deadly Premonition is a terrible game that everyone should play) but honestly this is one thing I look and go "What is the point here?". From everything I've read it seems to combine this with poop gameplay, which is a shame but even if the gameplay was good I just don't think I could bother playing through those stupid gigolo segments.
wait that stuff is actual gameplay you engage in and not just a few dumb juvenile cutscenes?
ok I'm hopping off this train again, that sounds pretty bad
Yes, Polygons Review has a decent summary:
It is notable that you don't HAVE to do these, but some of the better weapons and similar are apparently hidden behind doing it. Notable extra points for calling the women "Targets" in this mode as well.
sheesh, what
What? "Literal eyefuck" means something very different on the internet. I'm kind of relieved.
Coming into this thread to let people know what sick fucks they are for enjoying their creeper simulator would be the equivalent of going into the Uncharted or Tomb Raider threads to call them sick fucks for enjoying their murder simulators. They would tell you to fuck off.
And I know game threads aren't required to be limited to positive talk about the game, but I don't really understand why there needs to be so much discussion about it from people who have no desire to play it. I can understand if you perhaps liked Suda 51 in the past, but are upset that he "crossed a line." But if you don't like Suda 51 games, you think Killer is Dead is tasteless, and have no desire to play it, why bother talking about it?
And if you did like Suda 51 before, you did notice that his main characters routinely objectified woman, right? You were okay with it as a passive observer, but became sickened when it became interactive?
There's a difference between a narrative having sexist, gross characters in it and the narrative itself being sexist and gross.
I don't mind raunchy at times and I feel people should be allowed to it if they want.
But at the same time I'm getting older and the older I get the more I just feel that we should generally be past a lot of this stuff.
Its like when I was 14, I loved American Pie. Now. Not so much.
Not to mention in the way its achieved. I mean you're basically peeking at chicks though x-ray glasses. Once again, I don't mind sexy or sex humor. But that isn't really sexy or funny, just kind of tasteless and crude.
I mean I'm not going to judge people for playing as I was interested in the game before all this stuff and I don't think this thread needs to be invaded by the social justice army. But I do think these things require some consideration.
yeah, probably
I remember thinking no more heroes was actually a little subversive in regards to its incredibly wince-inducing protagonist and his journey to get laid, but judging by Suda's output since then I guess that was being dumb and reading too much into it. Oh well~
Either you believe that video games are free to have whatever content that they want, and that they are not responsible for society's ills or you don't. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't get to call ripping heads off of bodies, going on shooting sprees in the middle of major cities and dicing people into giblets with your sword good clean fun and then have conniption fits because a game made you look at pixelated, polygonal cleavage.
Actually I do get to have it both ways:
a) Video games are not responsible for an increase in gun-related violence.
b) Video games are responsible for propagating the culture of misogyny that very much exists.
Also, describing a minigame that has you purposefully stalk and ogle a woman for a reward as "made you look at pixelated, polygonal cleavage" is a bullshit reduction.
Now, maybe Suda has an artistic reason for doing this. I don't know. Maybe he's doing some kind of post-post-post-post-post modern thing here. Maybe he wants to flaunt how ducking creepy this is to make the audience say "yeah, holy shit, I never want to be like that!"
Or maybe he's fed up with the increasing demand for social progress and this is his way of not only eschewing the repeated cries by activists and critics that games are still terribly misogynistic.
I don't know and I'd really rather not speculate on his intent. All we can do is examine to product or art itself. And what we have here are some stalky Peeping Tom segments that treat women like sex objects. That's pretty much the textbook definition of misogyny. It's not even up for interpretation and it's not a matter of opinion: The objective of these missions is to have sex and you do so by actively creeping on these women.
Do I believe you have to reject the entire game as a result? No. But the criticisms are valid, are not prudish, and are not inconsistent with a refutation that games are murder spree catalysts. It sexualizes women and does so in a rather explicit manner that forces the player to emulate behaviors generally considered bad.
This is what Suda USED to be known for:
I bought FSaR a while back but haven't played it yet. Is it any good?
It's best described as the best bad game you will ever play. The story is fantastic, but the gameplay itself... uh. I hope you like walking.
Fantastic music, done by Masafumi Takada, GH's former go-to guy.
If you want to compare a videogame's glorification of violence against their glorification of negative gender politics, then you do that. They are guilty of both.
If you want to compare a videogame's capacity to create violence in real life versus its capacity to create negative sexual actions in reality, then you do that. They are innocent of both.
But please don't try to compare a videogame's capacity to create violence in real life versus a videogame's glorification of sexuality. It is a dishonest arguement that pretends to create a 1-to-1 comparison when there isn't one. If you consider a videogame's depiction of sexual politics socially problematic then yes, you must also do the same of violence. At least, if one chooses to be into the whole intellectual consistency thing. There's no court or culture on this planet (okay, I should walk that back, some of those third world places can get pretty wacky!) that will consider ogling a woman more heinous than murder.
May I ask what your stance on "eyefucking" happens to be? I would imagine that if reductionism is such a problem, then exaggeration would also have to be addressed?
Videogames (and I mean this in the sense of individual products, not as an industry as a whole) much like any piece of media, are not for everybody and have no moral obligation to be otherwise. Suda can make the game he wants and in a free society, the market will decide whether what he has created has value or doesn't (which I guess is great news for you! We all know how Suda's games sell!).
Consumers can have the opinion that they please on these games, but if professional websites and reviewers who would've staunchly stood by the ideas of freedom of speech and expression during a controversy that doesn't involve sexual politics in games, or at least would've separated their views on a game's plot or creative choices from the overall quality of the experience have chosen this game as their line in the sand? Then I think that is a very important break from what the standard has been thus far and would be one worth questioning.
I also think that makes it more of a game with creepy elements. Persona 4 Golden has some questionable stuff in it too, hardly anyone goes crazy over that.
PSN ID: fearsomepirate
You don't seem to understand what "freedom of speech" means. It means you are free to say what you think. You are free to speak your mind. It does not protect you from criticism, at least not from the criticism of your peers. Calling these websites and reviewers "professional" means diddly squat. They have no particular duty above a consumer's duty - which is none. There is no duty to protect art, or to stay out of controversy.
The day the federal government opens up a video game review blog and starts lambasting games that they consider against American ideals (or whatever country you are from), then you can sit there and preach to me about the duty reviewers have to protect an artist's freedom of speech or expression. But right now, your argument holds no water. Journalists are under no obligation to coddle Suda or any particular gamer who thinks this kind of content is not misogynistic in nature.
Now, for my part, I just played two of the Gigolo missions. Are they creepy? Yes, they are. Are they as bad as I expected? Not really. But everything has context. For instance, in the first season of the TV series Smallville, Clark Kent uses his newly discovered x-ray vision to try and spy on Lana while she is changing. Is that creepy? Is that misogynistic? Yes and yes. But in context, it's just there to paint a picture of who Clark is and what he was struggling with at the time. Relating this back to Killer is Dead and Mondo, well, it's hard to see what these Gigolo missions represent other than gratuitous objectification of women. If, once I finish the game, they are somehow contextually justified, then hooray! and if not then they aren't. They currently stand as creepy little intrusions into the game. That's my impression and that's apparently the impression of dozens of other people. I have no obligation, and they have no obligion, to lie to uphold "freedom of speech." Criticism of art is as much speech as the art itself.
Christ, I want to slap myself for even writing that last sentence. While true, I basically find review and critique to be bullshit. But even so, the point stands.
Agreed. But I think it also raises a good talking point and a teachable moment. The moral that gamers should take from this controversy is: "it's wrong to go a bar and stare women up and down while wearing x-ray glasses."
You and Jeddy both need to show me the part of my post history on this thread that I said this game can never be criticized, because I just read it over and I'm not seeing it. What I have done however is call into question a bias on the part of reviewers that I consider against the norm and wonder aloud if that bias must be considered when considering their reviews for this game. Reviewers can be as petty and biased as they like, yes. They have no obligation to be able to take a dispassionate stance on games they may not like the content of, yes. They can use their position as a bully pulpit to try and further their political ideas, yes. However if that is the case, do I as a potential consumer not have the right to take these biases into account and contextualize their reviews accordingly?
We've come full circle. I entered this the thread on the fence about a game was interested in, asking if I should adjust the score up a point or two, and got my head bitten off for it.
This isn't about the ideals of a country or a duty to protect. It's a question of bias and consistency.
I find contention with the idea that disagreeable content must be justified to exist, and at no point has this ever been about lying to protect anybody.
And with that, I will take my permanent leave. I do not want to be responsible for this thread being shut down and I have the hope that maybe at some point people who like the game will be able to discuss it without being accused of wanting to do away with women's suffrage. Please send any further arguments to my inbox. (Or you know, you could always take potshots at a guy who said he was backing out. Whatever gets you through the day. Yes, I DID need to come back to add this bit of jerk insurance.)