It's super well established that people like looking at attractive people. It isn't just about sex appeal. People prefer attractive people of the same gender (or the opposite gender if they are homosexual). People simply don't like ugly people, and since appearance has nothing to do with personality (we get to choose appearance and personality), I don't see any reason to make someone ugly, unless it is to establish them as a villian.
Erm... What? You've completely and utterly lost me. Are you being ironic here?
Even in a storytelling or fantasy setting, people gotta ground it in a way that the audience will have things to latch onto and empathize with. A world where everyone is all running around with runway model body fat percentages and magazine cover faces would be off-putting and weird. It also ties the hands of the storytellers in that--why would anybody fall prey to a siren or temptress type character when their wife or girlfriend is already at the same level of attractiveness, the same level everyone else is at?
If your idea was reasonable, probably somebody would've tried it by now.
"People like tall dudes, so it doesn't stand to reason that everyone isn't very, very tall." And then everyone hits their heads on doorframes and ogles each other for the whole game to remind us how tall and attractive they are.
They don't all need to be super models, but they should all be above average to very attractive, I would think. Who empathizes with the ugly dude because he's ugly?
Also, aren't a lot of our games worlds exactly the "off putting and weird" world you are describing? Where are the fat people in WoW or Skyrim?
Someone who considers themself ugly. Duh.
You don't think it's off putting or weird that everyone of X race in WoW has the same body type, same with Skyrim, I guess? I understand that it's about not making a seperate model for every lady and dude in the world, but diversity is a good thing. I'd like Skyrim's world better and find it more believable if there were more body types. I guess maybe you're just better at suspension of disbelief than me.
You said there is value in diversity, but I don't see why that is the case at all with body types. Do you think there is value in promoting eye color diversity too? Would your ideal world have fat and thin people in it, and if so, why? How about ugly and attractive people?
Honestly, this is making me think of how the deaf community has criticized the coclear implant because it is destroying deaf culture by allowing deaf children to go to normal schools and speak/hear normally instead of needing sign language. I am prepared to say conclusively that a world where everyone can hear and speak is better than one where some people can't, and deaf culture be damned.
Yes.
Yes, because good stories don't happen in utopias.
Yes.
An ideal world wouldn't have conflict, but we don't make video games about utopias full of beautiful people with no conflict, because that's incredibly difficult to build a story around.
It isn't all or nothing. We have the capacity to make the people look however we want. Why choose to make them less appealing to look at unless your goal is to impart something by their ugliness? I really don't understand this.
On chainmail bikinis, armor traditionally makes you harder to hit, so distracting people by wearing impractical (and sexy) armor might actually make more sense then wearing big heavy plate mail that you can hardly move in.
you're shitting me, right? you're not actually pretending that chainmail bikinis make sense and are actually more practical than real armor, right?
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
In Hazanko's world, if it's possible to legitimately criticize a piece of media, then everyone who likes that literature must be burned atop pyres to keep the bloodlines pure.
This is why he doesn't like media being called sexist. That would mean that it was possible that the media he likes isn't perfect. This would mean he belongs tied to one of the pyres of his own making. This cannot be.
Hazanko, the easier solution to your conundrum is to just realize that you are not a bad person for liking something that isn't perfect. S'cool, Holmes.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
namely, an actual woman with defining characteristics and not just some hot air
What I don't get is, if you want to see some tittys porn is right there. I mean if you can play vidja games you can probably look up some real porn, so just do that.
Like in TOR you see people who put their female companions or even their female characters in the leia slave bikini, and I can't see that and not go "jesus what a loser."
My personal attachment to the idea is that people should be free to do their thing without be criticized on a moral basis. If someone wants to make a grindhouse-inspired pulp video game, they should be able to make that fucking video game without feminism collectively throwing up its hands in horror at the *gasp* overly-violent overly-sexualized one-dimensional characters.
When did Hitman become grindhouse pulp?
I've played the Absolution demo and unless the nun level takes a big swerve... it's not grindhouse.
That's what they were referencing. I mean, that's from the creator's own mouths, that's what I'm going on. The trailer certainly played to that theme.
No idea if the actual game is like that or not. That's sort of adjacent to the point i was making anyways.
It's super well established that people like looking at attractive people. It isn't just about sex appeal. People prefer attractive people of the same gender (or the opposite gender if they are homosexual). People simply don't like ugly people, and since appearance has nothing to do with personality (we get to choose appearance and personality), I don't see any reason to make someone ugly, unless it is to establish them as a villian.
Erm... What? You've completely and utterly lost me. Are you being ironic here?
Even in a storytelling or fantasy setting, people gotta ground it in a way that the audience will have things to latch onto and empathize with. A world where everyone is all running around with runway model body fat percentages and magazine cover faces would be off-putting and weird. It also ties the hands of the storytellers in that--why would anybody fall prey to a siren or temptress type character when their wife or girlfriend is already at the same level of attractiveness, the same level everyone else is at?
If your idea was reasonable, probably somebody would've tried it by now.
"People like tall dudes, so it doesn't stand to reason that everyone isn't very, very tall." And then everyone hits their heads on doorframes and ogles each other for the whole game to remind us how tall and attractive they are.
They don't all need to be super models, but they should all be above average to very attractive, I would think. Who empathizes with the ugly dude because he's ugly?
Also, aren't a lot of our games worlds exactly the "off putting and weird" world you are describing? Where are the fat people in WoW or Skyrim?
Someone who considers themself ugly. Duh.
You don't think it's off putting or weird that everyone of X race in WoW has the same body type, same with Skyrim, I guess? I understand that it's about not making a seperate model for every lady and dude in the world, but diversity is a good thing. I'd like Skyrim's world better and find it more believable if there were more body types. I guess maybe you're just better at suspension of disbelief than me.
You said there is value in diversity, but I don't see why that is the case at all with body types. Do you think there is value in promoting eye color diversity too? Would your ideal world have fat and thin people in it, and if so, why? How about ugly and attractive people?
Honestly, this is making me think of how the deaf community has criticized the coclear implant because it is destroying deaf culture by allowing deaf children to go to normal schools and speak/hear normally instead of needing sign language. I am prepared to say conclusively that a world where everyone can hear and speak is better than one where some people can't, and deaf culture be damned.
Yes.
Yes, because good stories don't happen in utopias.
Yes.
An ideal world wouldn't have conflict, but we don't make video games about utopias full of beautiful people with no conflict, because that's incredibly difficult to build a story around.
It isn't all or nothing. We have the capacity to make the people look however we want. Why choose to make them less appealing to look at unless your goal is to impart something by their ugliness? I really don't understand this.
On chainmail bikinis, armor traditionally makes you harder to hit, so distracting people by wearing impractical (and sexy) armor might actually make more sense then wearing big heavy plate mail that you can hardly move in.
Dude, if you want to make some sort of weird fantasy game where all the dudes are perfectly buff and chiseled and wear chainmail speedos, and all the women are bodacious babes with big tits and chainmail bikinis, go for it. No one is stopping you.
What are you even getting at?
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
namely, an actual woman with defining characteristics and not just some hot air
What I don't get is, if you want to see some tittys porn is right there. I mean if you can play vidja games you can probably look up some real porn, so just do that.
Like in TOR you see people who put their female companions or even their female characters in the leia slave bikini, and I can't see that and not go "jesus what a loser."
My personal attachment to the idea is that people should be free to do their thing without be criticized on a moral basis. If someone wants to make a grindhouse-inspired pulp video game, they should be able to make that fucking video game without feminism collectively throwing up its hands in horror at the *gasp* overly-violent overly-sexualized one-dimensional characters.
When did Hitman become grindhouse pulp?
I've played the Absolution demo and unless the nun level takes a big swerve... it's not grindhouse.
That's what they were referencing. I mean, that's from the creator's own mouths, that's what I'm going on. The trailer certainly played to that theme.
No idea if the actual game is like that or not. That's sort of adjacent to the point i was making anyways.
Well if the creators say, "oh yeah we're totally going grindhouse with this game, that's why the trailer is that way, it's an accurate representation!", and then the actual game itself is just a regular hitman game, but with one scene of nun-killing, doesn't that give lie to their excuse?
Like every time someone has shallow characterization and female objectification, shouting "grindhouse!" isn't a magic password to excuse every and all choices.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
they're gonna be so distracted they'll miss that 90% of your body is vulnerable
including the stomach, where there's a bunch of squishy things that getting stabbed in them would be Negative
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
for those of you who were wondering, the thing i was saying is classifying things as being solely for the consumption of ladies ("fem-dreck" does this explicitly) is sexist as heck
"chick flick' is another term i hate
Man don't take Chick Flick from me, that's just a describer. I mean what else would you call a Nicolas Sparks movie? Well other than god awful.
Fem Drek has like a negative connotation, Chick flick just says "you'll be one of the only dudes in this audience."
It's a subcategory of things targeted at a female audience. Also, a subcategory of drek. Generally, drek tends to delineate its targeting more. You don't see stuff as male-oriented as pro-wrestling or Michael Bay from higher quality sources. Well, I suppose there's romance novels and Lifetime movies, but those are borderline drek.
The WWE is one of the biggest supporters of make a wish (John Cena alone has granted 300 wishes), is currently sponsoring a major anti-bullying campaign, is a staunch supporter of the American military and frequently provides them with free entertainment, and has set many attendance records in major venues. Don't be a dick.
why can't it just be drek? do we really need to specify who it's for, as if there's not men who enjoy romcoms and women who watch pro graps (they exist)?
why can't we stop with the exclusive language
why is this so fucking important to people that their response to "hey that's a bad concept" is to just repeat it, as if it's somehow better to have two shitty concepts instead of one?
Because it's still marketed at and designed to appeal to certain groups. Are we suddenly not allowed to mention reality because you don't like reality? There is a grouping of thinks related by quality level and marketing strategy, so why shouldn't we acknowledge that fact? Twilight, reality TV, and gossip and style mags are designed to (and generally do) appeal to the tastes of our society's women, while shitty action movies, pro wrestling, and pre/postgame coverage are aimed at our society's men. Also, skirts are made for women.
Now, what the fuck are "pro graps?"
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
why can't it just be drek? do we really need to specify who it's for, as if there's not men who enjoy romcoms and women who watch pro graps (they exist)?
why can't we stop with the exclusive language
why is this so fucking important to people that their response to "hey that's a bad concept" is to just repeat it, as if it's somehow better to have two shitty concepts instead of one?
Because it's still marketed at and designed to appeal to certain groups. Are we suddenly not allowed to mention reality because you don't like reality? There is a grouping of thinks related by quality level and marketing strategy, so why shouldn't we acknowledge that fact? Twilight, reality TV, and gossip and style mags are designed to (and generally do) appeal to the tastes of our society's women, while shitty action movies, pro wrestling, and pre/postgame coverage are aimed at our society's men. Also, skirts are made for women.
Now, what the fuck are "pro graps?"
and the fact that things are marketed towards, and designated as being solely for, women is terrible and changing the language to be more inclusive is a good thing and a step towards correcting that
pro graps is wrestling
as evidenced by the fact that i mentioned it in my rebuttal to your THIS IS FOR WOMEN AND THIS IS FOR MEN post
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
why can't it just be drek? do we really need to specify who it's for, as if there's not men who enjoy romcoms and women who watch pro graps (they exist)?
why can't we stop with the exclusive language
why is this so fucking important to people that their response to "hey that's a bad concept" is to just repeat it, as if it's somehow better to have two shitty concepts instead of one?
Because it's still marketed at and designed to appeal to certain groups. Are we suddenly not allowed to mention reality because you don't like reality? There is a grouping of thinks related by quality level and marketing strategy, so why shouldn't we acknowledge that fact? Twilight, reality TV, and gossip and style mags are designed to (and generally do) appeal to the tastes of our society's women, while shitty action movies, pro wrestling, and pre/postgame coverage are aimed at our society's men. Also, skirts are made for women.
Now, what the fuck are "pro graps?"
So for everything that's marketed to an audience, you really and truly want to delinate the specific audience for whom the drek was created?
Black-drek? White-drek? youth-drek? Elderly-drek? Jew-drek? Islamic-drek? You really want to go there?
Or can we agree that appellations like that are actually less meaningful and communicative than merely using the word "drek" for things that deserve it?
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
why can't it just be drek? do we really need to specify who it's for, as if there's not men who enjoy romcoms and women who watch pro graps (they exist)?
why can't we stop with the exclusive language
why is this so fucking important to people that their response to "hey that's a bad concept" is to just repeat it, as if it's somehow better to have two shitty concepts instead of one?
Because it's still marketed at and designed to appeal to certain groups. Are we suddenly not allowed to mention reality because you don't like reality? There is a grouping of thinks related by quality level and marketing strategy, so why shouldn't we acknowledge that fact? Twilight, reality TV, and gossip and style mags are designed to (and generally do) appeal to the tastes of our society's women, while shitty action movies, pro wrestling, and pre/postgame coverage are aimed at our society's men. Also, skirts are made for women.
Now, what the fuck are "pro graps?"
So for everything that's marketed to an audience, you really and truly want to delinate the specific audience for whom the drek was created?
Black-drek? White-drek? youth-drek? Elderly-drek? Jew-drek? Islamic-drek? You really want to go there?
Or can we agree that appellations like that are actually less meaningful and communicative than merely using the word "drek" for things that deserve it?
Well, some of those groups have their own culture, so I'd say that stigmatizing attempts to cater to them is a pretty good attempt to snuff out anything you regard to be foreign.
namely, an actual woman with defining characteristics and not just some hot air
What I don't get is, if you want to see some tittys porn is right there. I mean if you can play vidja games you can probably look up some real porn, so just do that.
Like in TOR you see people who put their female companions or even their female characters in the leia slave bikini, and I can't see that and not go "jesus what a loser."
My personal attachment to the idea is that people should be free to do their thing without be criticized on a moral basis. If someone wants to make a grindhouse-inspired pulp video game, they should be able to make that fucking video game without feminism collectively throwing up its hands in horror at the *gasp* overly-violent overly-sexualized one-dimensional characters.
When did Hitman become grindhouse pulp?
I've played the Absolution demo and unless the nun level takes a big swerve... it's not grindhouse.
That's what they were referencing. I mean, that's from the creator's own mouths, that's what I'm going on. The trailer certainly played to that theme.
No idea if the actual game is like that or not. That's sort of adjacent to the point i was making anyways.
Well if the creators say, "oh yeah we're totally going grindhouse with this game, that's why the trailer is that way, it's an accurate representation!", and then the actual game itself is just a regular hitman game, but with one scene of nun-killing, doesn't that give lie to their excuse?
Like every time someone has shallow characterization and female objectification, shouting "grindhouse!" isn't a magic password to excuse every and all choices.
I haven't played the game yet, I can't pass judgment. The scene I've seen reminded me of that whole style before they even felt compelled to put out a statement clarifying.
The funny thing is that it doesn't even matter if the rest of the game is like that or not. People were going batshit over the idea that it was in fact, going to be that way. Which is what I had a problem with. Some folks just can't get over the idea that they are not the targeted audience.
It's super well established that people like looking at attractive people. It isn't just about sex appeal. People prefer attractive people of the same gender (or the opposite gender if they are homosexual). People simply don't like ugly people, and since appearance has nothing to do with personality (we get to choose appearance and personality), I don't see any reason to make someone ugly, unless it is to establish them as a villian.
Erm... What? You've completely and utterly lost me. Are you being ironic here?
Even in a storytelling or fantasy setting, people gotta ground it in a way that the audience will have things to latch onto and empathize with. A world where everyone is all running around with runway model body fat percentages and magazine cover faces would be off-putting and weird. It also ties the hands of the storytellers in that--why would anybody fall prey to a siren or temptress type character when their wife or girlfriend is already at the same level of attractiveness, the same level everyone else is at?
If your idea was reasonable, probably somebody would've tried it by now.
"People like tall dudes, so it doesn't stand to reason that everyone isn't very, very tall." And then everyone hits their heads on doorframes and ogles each other for the whole game to remind us how tall and attractive they are.
They don't all need to be super models, but they should all be above average to very attractive, I would think. Who empathizes with the ugly dude because he's ugly?
Also, aren't a lot of our games worlds exactly the "off putting and weird" world you are describing? Where are the fat people in WoW or Skyrim?
Someone who considers themself ugly. Duh.
You don't think it's off putting or weird that everyone of X race in WoW has the same body type, same with Skyrim, I guess? I understand that it's about not making a seperate model for every lady and dude in the world, but diversity is a good thing. I'd like Skyrim's world better and find it more believable if there were more body types. I guess maybe you're just better at suspension of disbelief than me.
You said there is value in diversity, but I don't see why that is the case at all with body types. Do you think there is value in promoting eye color diversity too? Would your ideal world have fat and thin people in it, and if so, why? How about ugly and attractive people?
Honestly, this is making me think of how the deaf community has criticized the coclear implant because it is destroying deaf culture by allowing deaf children to go to normal schools and speak/hear normally instead of needing sign language. I am prepared to say conclusively that a world where everyone can hear and speak is better than one where some people can't, and deaf culture be damned.
Yes.
Yes, because good stories don't happen in utopias.
Yes.
An ideal world wouldn't have conflict, but we don't make video games about utopias full of beautiful people with no conflict, because that's incredibly difficult to build a story around.
It isn't all or nothing. We have the capacity to make the people look however we want. Why choose to make them less appealing to look at unless your goal is to impart something by their ugliness? I really don't understand this.
On chainmail bikinis, armor traditionally makes you harder to hit, so distracting people by wearing impractical (and sexy) armor might actually make more sense then wearing big heavy plate mail that you can hardly move in.
For me, believable fantasy world means filling it with believable characters. Believable characters means a diverse range of body types, skin/eye/hair colors, and personalities. I don't know what you mean by "it" in reference to it being "all or nothing." "Beautiful unless ugly for purposes of story," takes me out of the story. Same way I'd be taken out of the story if everyone were so tall they looked like Shaq when they held a soda can or whatever.
I'd be like, why is everybody so huge?
CowShark on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Armor is designed to help you survive a hit. Chainmail bikinis are there for one reason, and it ain't because they're practical
What does armor traditionally do in games, going back to d&d? It makes you harder to hit.
I'm obviously being tongue in cheek though.
Characters in games are almost always at least above average, or evil. I think this makes sense, and I don't think that there is any reason to make characters randomly ugly.
0
Options
ButtlordFornicusLord of Bondage and PainRegistered Userregular
why can't it just be drek? do we really need to specify who it's for, as if there's not men who enjoy romcoms and women who watch pro graps (they exist)?
why can't we stop with the exclusive language
why is this so fucking important to people that their response to "hey that's a bad concept" is to just repeat it, as if it's somehow better to have two shitty concepts instead of one?
Because it's still marketed at and designed to appeal to certain groups. Are we suddenly not allowed to mention reality because you don't like reality? There is a grouping of thinks related by quality level and marketing strategy, so why shouldn't we acknowledge that fact? Twilight, reality TV, and gossip and style mags are designed to (and generally do) appeal to the tastes of our society's women, while shitty action movies, pro wrestling, and pre/postgame coverage are aimed at our society's men. Also, skirts are made for women.
Now, what the fuck are "pro graps?"
So for everything that's marketed to an audience, you really and truly want to delinate the specific audience for whom the drek was created?
Black-drek? White-drek? youth-drek? Elderly-drek? Jew-drek? Islamic-drek? You really want to go there?
Or can we agree that appellations like that are actually less meaningful and communicative than merely using the word "drek" for things that deserve it?
Well, some of those groups have their own culture, so I'd say that stigmatizing attempts to cater to them is a pretty good attempt to snuff out anything you regard to be foreign.
it's not about stigmatizing attempts to appeal to a group, it's about language that says "this is for group a and this for group b and never shall the twain meet"
like what part of this are you not understanding
exclusionary language is shitty
who cares that a thing is for women, if it's drek it's drek
Chainmail bikinis are awesome--- as an option. I remember my old guild back in my MMO days, where some of the women just went insane trying to get, literally, the best armor bikini they could find. One of them spent like $50 to buy a special bikini model.
Others just went with the full platemail option. Or the head-to-toe robe option.
Armor is designed to help you survive a hit. Chainmail bikinis are there for one reason, and it ain't because they're practical
What does armor traditionally do in games, going back to d&d? It makes you harder to hit.
I'm obviously being tongue in cheek though.
Characters in games are almost always at least above average, or evil. I think this makes sense, and I don't think that there is any reason to make characters randomly ugly.
Look, I hope someone makes your game where all the shopkeepers and field hands, random mooks, villagers, guards, and filler characters are searingly beautiful, paradigms of hotness that smolder in the background while you're cruising past them to the next story objective. Actually it sounds like goofy fun.
Lifetime movies, Twilight, etc. might be "drek for women" but calling it "fem-drek" suggests that being aimed at women is what makes it drek.
Fair enough, although gender-specific engineering seems to always be aiming at our worst instincts, especially compared to things that are disproportionately enjoyed and advertized to a certain gender, but aren't designed specifically for it, like rom-coms and video games.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Chainmail bikinis are awesome--- as an option. I remember my old guild back in my MMO days, where some of the women just went insane trying to get, literally, the best armor bikini they could find. One of them spent like $50 to buy a special bikini model.
Others just went with the full platemail option. Or the head-to-toe robe option.
It's nice when there's options.
It sure is! Makes a person wonder why you are fighting so hard in this thread against the desire for options, styling it as an attack and whatnot.
Do you know that right now, it's super easy in Star Wars: The Old Republic, to get one of several bikinis for your toon to wear, but it's impossible to find a jedi robe where the hood is down? This is something that people have been complaining since launch: give us hood-down robes, Bioware!
I wonder how many people who are enjoying the slave bikinis think that the wish for hood-down robes is an attack? I'm thinking none of them, but this thread throws it in to doubt.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Chainmail bikinis are awesome--- as an option. I remember my old guild back in my MMO days, where some of the women just went insane trying to get, literally, the best armor bikini they could find. One of them spent like $50 to buy a special bikini model.
Others just went with the full platemail option. Or the head-to-toe robe option.
It's nice when there's options.
It sure is! Makes a person wonder why you are fighting so hard in this thread against the desire for options, styling it as an attack and whatnot.
Do you know that right now, it's super easy in Star Wars: The Old Republic, to get one of several bikinis for your toon to wear, but it's impossible to find a jedi robe where the hood is down? This is something that people have been complaining since launch: give us hood-down robes, Bioware!
I wonder how many people who are enjoying the slave bikinis think that the wish for hood-down robes is an attack? I'm thinking none of them, but this thread throws it in to doubt.
Part of it is that the argument for more top-down robes frequently includes an allegation that slave bikinis are terrible and attack women when we're not looking.
Bagginses on
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Chainmail bikinis are awesome--- as an option. I remember my old guild back in my MMO days, where some of the women just went insane trying to get, literally, the best armor bikini they could find. One of them spent like $50 to buy a special bikini model.
Others just went with the full platemail option. Or the head-to-toe robe option.
It's nice when there's options.
It sure is! Makes a person wonder why you are fighting so hard in this thread against the desire for options, styling it as an attack and whatnot.
Do you know that right now, it's super easy in Star Wars: The Old Republic, to get one of several bikinis for your toon to wear, but it's impossible to find a jedi robe where the hood is down? This is something that people have been complaining since launch: give us hood-down robes, Bioware!
I wonder how many people who are enjoying the slave bikinis think that the wish for hood-down robes is an attack? I'm thinking none of them, but this thread throws it in to doubt.
Part of it is that the argument for more top-down robes frequently includes an allegation that slave bikinis are terrible and attack women when we're not looking.
Well you can't buy speedos for the dude toons, which does seem pretty sexist to me. There are also zero male strippers in the game.
But even those things are requests for more options, not less.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
This is a terrible thread that has beget much terribleness and I am closing it because my tolerance for terribleness has been reached.
The world is a worse place for this thread having existed.
It is like an evil mime dressed as Carrot Top punching you in the dick forever.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
you're shitting me, right? you're not actually pretending that chainmail bikinis make sense and are actually more practical than real armor, right?
This is why he doesn't like media being called sexist. That would mean that it was possible that the media he likes isn't perfect. This would mean he belongs tied to one of the pyres of his own making. This cannot be.
Hazanko, the easier solution to your conundrum is to just realize that you are not a bad person for liking something that isn't perfect. S'cool, Holmes.
That's what they were referencing. I mean, that's from the creator's own mouths, that's what I'm going on. The trailer certainly played to that theme.
No idea if the actual game is like that or not. That's sort of adjacent to the point i was making anyways.
Dude, if you want to make some sort of weird fantasy game where all the dudes are perfectly buff and chiseled and wear chainmail speedos, and all the women are bodacious babes with big tits and chainmail bikinis, go for it. No one is stopping you.
What are you even getting at?
Well if the creators say, "oh yeah we're totally going grindhouse with this game, that's why the trailer is that way, it's an accurate representation!", and then the actual game itself is just a regular hitman game, but with one scene of nun-killing, doesn't that give lie to their excuse?
Like every time someone has shallow characterization and female objectification, shouting "grindhouse!" isn't a magic password to excuse every and all choices.
including the stomach, where there's a bunch of squishy things that getting stabbed in them would be Negative
The WWE is one of the biggest supporters of make a wish (John Cena alone has granted 300 wishes), is currently sponsoring a major anti-bullying campaign, is a staunch supporter of the American military and frequently provides them with free entertainment, and has set many attendance records in major venues. Don't be a dick.
I'm not sure if this is worse towards women, or men, who apparently can't think further than "TITS!"
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Because it's still marketed at and designed to appeal to certain groups. Are we suddenly not allowed to mention reality because you don't like reality? There is a grouping of thinks related by quality level and marketing strategy, so why shouldn't we acknowledge that fact? Twilight, reality TV, and gossip and style mags are designed to (and generally do) appeal to the tastes of our society's women, while shitty action movies, pro wrestling, and pre/postgame coverage are aimed at our society's men. Also, skirts are made for women.
Now, what the fuck are "pro graps?"
and the fact that things are marketed towards, and designated as being solely for, women is terrible and changing the language to be more inclusive is a good thing and a step towards correcting that
pro graps is wrestling
as evidenced by the fact that i mentioned it in my rebuttal to your THIS IS FOR WOMEN AND THIS IS FOR MEN post
So for everything that's marketed to an audience, you really and truly want to delinate the specific audience for whom the drek was created?
Black-drek? White-drek? youth-drek? Elderly-drek? Jew-drek? Islamic-drek? You really want to go there?
Or can we agree that appellations like that are actually less meaningful and communicative than merely using the word "drek" for things that deserve it?
Well considering the amount of homosexuality around during plate mail times it should be the dudes wearing chainmail tankinis...
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well, some of those groups have their own culture, so I'd say that stigmatizing attempts to cater to them is a pretty good attempt to snuff out anything you regard to be foreign.
I haven't played the game yet, I can't pass judgment. The scene I've seen reminded me of that whole style before they even felt compelled to put out a statement clarifying.
The funny thing is that it doesn't even matter if the rest of the game is like that or not. People were going batshit over the idea that it was in fact, going to be that way. Which is what I had a problem with. Some folks just can't get over the idea that they are not the targeted audience.
For me, believable fantasy world means filling it with believable characters. Believable characters means a diverse range of body types, skin/eye/hair colors, and personalities. I don't know what you mean by "it" in reference to it being "all or nothing." "Beautiful unless ugly for purposes of story," takes me out of the story. Same way I'd be taken out of the story if everyone were so tall they looked like Shaq when they held a soda can or whatever.
What does armor traditionally do in games, going back to d&d? It makes you harder to hit.
I'm obviously being tongue in cheek though.
Characters in games are almost always at least above average, or evil. I think this makes sense, and I don't think that there is any reason to make characters randomly ugly.
it's not about stigmatizing attempts to appeal to a group, it's about language that says "this is for group a and this for group b and never shall the twain meet"
like what part of this are you not understanding
exclusionary language is shitty
who cares that a thing is for women, if it's drek it's drek
Chainmail bikinis are awesome--- as an option. I remember my old guild back in my MMO days, where some of the women just went insane trying to get, literally, the best armor bikini they could find. One of them spent like $50 to buy a special bikini model.
Others just went with the full platemail option. Or the head-to-toe robe option.
It's nice when there's options.
Look, I hope someone makes your game where all the shopkeepers and field hands, random mooks, villagers, guards, and filler characters are searingly beautiful, paradigms of hotness that smolder in the background while you're cruising past them to the next story objective. Actually it sounds like goofy fun.
Fair enough, although gender-specific engineering seems to always be aiming at our worst instincts, especially compared to things that are disproportionately enjoyed and advertized to a certain gender, but aren't designed specifically for it, like rom-coms and video games.
It sure is! Makes a person wonder why you are fighting so hard in this thread against the desire for options, styling it as an attack and whatnot.
Do you know that right now, it's super easy in Star Wars: The Old Republic, to get one of several bikinis for your toon to wear, but it's impossible to find a jedi robe where the hood is down? This is something that people have been complaining since launch: give us hood-down robes, Bioware!
I wonder how many people who are enjoying the slave bikinis think that the wish for hood-down robes is an attack? I'm thinking none of them, but this thread throws it in to doubt.
Part of it is that the argument for more top-down robes frequently includes an allegation that slave bikinis are terrible and attack women when we're not looking.
Well you can't buy speedos for the dude toons, which does seem pretty sexist to me. There are also zero male strippers in the game.
But even those things are requests for more options, not less.
The world is a worse place for this thread having existed.
It is like an evil mime dressed as Carrot Top punching you in the dick forever.