Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Este tema ha sido cerrado 
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Yeah you are right. But we have to give some kind of backlash, that we as customers count. It is not the woke fake crowd posting on twitter how super cool disney is when the fire gina.
They don't buy your product. We do, but we don't count cause we say that we don't care for this absurd mess. So blue haired checkmarks get to destroy our hobby.
And as the developer they will go to the publisher and say that their userbase ist't happy about the idiotic stuff they do.
At least this is my hope.
It's absolutely hilarious. Skimming at most, there's not a take worth giving a shred of energy, as always.
Just look at what you guys wrote "skimming at most", "I just spent 10 minutes reseraching", "I don't particularly care about the details".
If you try to ridicule others for their opinions at least don't make your willful ignorance so obvious.
If FF and Anita Sarkeesian were at first sight, obviously harmful then they wouldn't be in the position that they are, because everyone would see them for what they are. They can do what they're doing because people are too lazy to look into it, they just think "ohh, they say they want to help women, that's good!". As if saying you have good intentions is enough.
Particularly when google hides their failures and fraud when using google searching. You can't find most of that information through a google search alone, because it's been purged from the search results.
However there's people who've known of Anita for many years, some of them are even her former backers and supporters, who have watched her grow only to let down her own supporters by failing to deliver promised goods in exchange for donations. She barely met her Kickstarter promises. She already went bankrupt once. And now she's back begging for more of your money for her own personal uses, again.
That's without even having to mention that her ideals and rhetoric are ignorant and hateful. She blames men for things men are not responsible for as a gender. She claims she understands the Video Game Industry but she doesn't bother to research female developers in the industry. She lied about being a gamer that was just oh-so oppressed by it being a "male-dominated space", but then admits, thinking she was off-camera, that she doesn't play video games outside of the rare times she recorded for her content, and has no interest in video games.
Then if you watch her video series, she had to invent her own problems to have something to complain about. Nothing she said made any sense to anyone with experience with the games she was playing. She outright lies about the purposes and goals of Hitman, for example, trying to exaggerate that some characters are female, as if the other half of characters weren't male, and are used in the same exact ways.
She is a professional victim and grifter who will say anything to convince you to give money to her out of ignorance, hoping you never watch where that money actually goes.
But, if we have to? lol Paladin is 100% right. I'm a feminist and as a feminist? ESPECIALLY as a feminist? I don't like her. She takes a cause I care about and makes it look like a joke for a quick buck.
To most feminists that know about her (to be fair she hasn't been relevant since..2015?) she's a laughingstock at best and a con artist at worst. She actively disparages other women, body shames, etc. She makes assertions as someone with no interest in the hobbies she critiques, ergo most of her conclusions are wrong. She's taken donation money and never delivered on any of her projects. Her grift is thinly veiled, and eventually she'll drift even further into obscurity.
My advice? Ignore her OP. Attention is what sustains her at all. Her and the anit-sjws have a symbiotic relationship. Stop feeding them. Still don't think it's fair to punish a dev for the actions of a publisher though. Just ignore it. She's already practically irrelevant.
True enough.
One reason there is so much pushback is how she undermines the history of women in the industry, washing them out of history to create a victim narrative to profit off of as the actual one demeaning women, projecting the blame upon others. Her "solution" to anything is just to say there's a problem, so give me more money so I can continue to tell you there's a problem, the more money the louder it can be said with totally-not-misandrist overtones because a woman would never threaten another woman because the universe doesn't work that way. By that very nature this campaign creates the toxicity it purports to fight, creating nothing for anyone except those in charge of the scam, and only destroying creator integrity under another flag of puritanical censorship; the industry had enough of that nonsense in the 90s with Satanic Panic.
And so it becomes their beloved problematic when they try to enforce this on other cultures, cultural colonialism as they claim of others (but of course when it's their divine dogma it's okay to push upon the heathens to their religion).
This act becomes a "SHUT UP, BRAND" for the brands involved when they join as tools of these moneymaking schemes instead of putting their virtue-signaling money where it might actually help anyone. You would have thought people would have figured it out when the act hit bankruptcy in 2019 and limped along and when she got really upset when she missed out on becoming a millionaire grifter because not even EA's that dumb. Where has all the money gone? What did it do?
$15k target? That's it?
It is because of this that I suspect this is in some way a form of hush money because something was found and deemed "problematic" - Anita's price has dropped because there's very little demand anymore for what she has to offer. The same happened with the Satanic Panic puritans - pissing them off sold more, but you could amuse yourself by seeing how little money it takes to make them run off with their negotiated morals.
Yeah. Greats like Amy Hennig- completely ignored, because she has no idea or interest in what she's talking about beyond her con.
What's really sad to me is that these causes aren't completely without merit. A lot of people will see the visible, screaching, weirdos and grifters like her and completely write it all off. So much damage. There are plenty of civil rights battles still to be won. Just these...narcissists use it for profit or social currency. Outrage clicks, profit, power. Which is tantamount to playing with people's lives because it sets those struggles back by decades at least.
Satanic panic is a good comparison- a lot of these people haven't lived long enough to see that they are employing the same tactics of those who came before. Anita is practically a Mormon.
When Mass Effect came out, it was the likes of religious moral puritans and Fox News throwing a fit over it's sexual content. Re-releases today? And it's the opposite side coming down on it with the exact same critique. It's so surreal.
But..yeah.
A Normal Feminist: "Maybe it's in bad taste to have Miranda's butt be the focus in scenes when she's talking about her abusive relationships." A reasonable position, rather you agree with it or not, right?
Anita: "Miranda, herself, is sexist. Literally everything is sexist >:c" If a woman is in a game? Sexist. Not in a game? Sexist. Has a certain body type? Sexist. In particular though, she has a disturbing fascination with shaming the female body. Objectifying women even when they're aren't being objectified. Recent example being the Mandalorian. She called Bo-Katan/Katie Sackoff's armor "boob armor." Ridiculous. It's
a form fitting mirror image of the propagandist's armor. I'm not sure what she was expecting, other than the actress to be crushed under the armor? lol
My personal fave is Roberta Williams, co-creator of Sierra (a pity that amazing company isn't still around), creator of the graphical adventure genre.
Exactly! Horseshoe theory was proven quite amazingly there.
I find it odd that she takes affront on the idea of female sexuality in anything yet WAP is apparently the song of 2021 and is held as empowerment or something. If it really mattered that much, I'm sure 30 years ago we could have put some Lords of Acid on the air with Nikki Van Lierop/Jade 4U belting out even raunchier.
Even then, I would have to state there's a reason why Miranda's butt was juxtaposed to frame those scenes in such a manner. Yes, she was made to be overtly sexual etc. and that feeling of wrongness is entirely intentional. Attractive people can dress down, butt for her the allure was on 24/7 as designed.
In this, Miranda was already a twist on the Femme Fatale trope. To remove her butt framing those shots would be to lose the emphasis upon her actual character development of escaping her background butt having it always following her.
A culture of pandering, what Anita is marketing, would preclude any such subtleties and nuance - as it is already insisting upon destroying the creative vision in the name of morality.
Even some men found the scenes with specific focuses on Miranda in Mass Effect 2 were egregious, it's not even just a feminist viewpoint. However you can also argue that women have the right to let themselves be objectified if they want to be, it's their choice, and I would argue that feminists saying otherwise are standing against women's rights to express personal liberty and individualism.
I personally don't want oversexualization in games and just put up with it because I do not desire to censor content and thus destroy liberties in the process. I'd rather just express my opinions and perhaps convince people that there's a time and place for "sexy time" and that it doesn't need to be in every big release that isn't aiming for a sexually-minded market. In other words I would hope for consideration of voluntary moderation, not forced censorship.
Anita not only represents mass censorship but she represents contradictory ideals that have no consistency or principles. It's just a power play for her to have control over pieces of the market to bend them how she desires so that she can personally profit off of them. And the result is absurd takes that, as you described, you cannot win on, because she will always find something else wrong even if it runs opposite of her previous goals.
I'm also glad you pointed out the irony that we have the same Puritan-style censorship campaigns from the 90's and 2000's except they've totally reversed and come from the opposite side politically. The arguments aren't dissimilar to the 90's and 2000's attacks on Violence or Sexualization in Video Games, or 80's and 90's for Movies. However that's another can of worms.
I agree one not punishing Developers for the actions of a Publisher, but I also personally believe in voting with my wallet against Publishers that fund destructive ideals that actively harm the market. If that affects some Developers, that's a risk I have to take and I would encourage developers to stay away from the Publisher if they were somehow so concerned about it.
Anyways, that's just my two coppers.
Never do that if you want a good existance.
pr0 tip: If you are trying to seem even slightly objective, you might want to avoid terms that signal you most likely are not, like that abomination SJW. Might help your credibility. A lot.
For the record: It does not automatically mean all you wrote is BS, but it makes it significantly harder to take your input as something seriously and unbiased.
Calling a Spade a Spade does not make one less Objective.
The term Social Justice Warrior was coined by the people that it refers to. If anyone thinks it's a slur or finds it offensive, it is either because they are not aware of it's origins or it has been part of the twisting of narratives to gaslight people while playing victim for being called something that they invented and called themselves.
So there are many reasons people don't like Sarkeesian.
1. The main reason being she's a feminist ideologue. Feminist ideology is misguided at the best of times. In the worst? It promotes double standards under the guise of "equality." Being a feminist ideologue alone isn't enough for most people to care too terribly about it. The reason why Sarkeesian strikes a particularly strong chord with gamers though is because she was essentially another incarnation of Jack Thompson--just replace "video games cause violence" to "video games cause misogyny." A lot of gamers thought rightly that Sarkeesian would've been laughed out of gaming circles because of the parallels there, but no, she was embraced by an unsettling amount of enclaves within the gaming community.
Ultimately it doesn't matter.
What does matter is that there is zero evidence to suggest that gaming causes violence or misogyny which is why Sarkeesian is fundamentally wrong.
2. So I just briefly touched on double standards under feminism, yeah? Well Sarkeesian is a double-standards kind of feminist. Y'know the game Spelunky? Misogynistic. Why? Well Sarkeesian says that it's sexist for spelunkers to rescue a damsel in distress. Period. You have that element at all in the game? It's sexist according to her. Now if you've ever played the game you might also realize that there's the option to not have person in peril be a damsel. It can be a dude. Not only that but the spelunker can also be a girl. So you'd think this would solve the issue as the game is clearly not making a statement that only women are helpless and only men can save them, right? Wrong. It's still sexist because it exists in a society that's sexist and simply reversing the genders does nothing to make the trope not exist. Well, alright. How about instead of rescuing a damsel or a dude in distress, we instead use the option in Spelunky to rescue the pug. Surely *that* should be fine, right?
Wrong.
Didn't y'know? The fact that the damsel can be replaced with a pug is actually making a statement against women.
There are innumerable examples of her pulling ♥♥♥♥ like this. Like take Mario Bros. 3--clearly a bastion of misogyny in video gaming. You spend like the whole game rescuing kings. You rescue like 7 of them. But at the bitter end Peach gets kidnapped by Bowser and so all that king rescuing counts for nothing under Sarkeesian's brand of feminism.
It's beyond aggravating how stupidly insipid her argumentation is which basically boils down to if something can be contrived or read into uncharitably as sexist? Then it *must* be sexist.
3. Now all that said, the main reason why all of that is utterly meaningless?
She's a grifter and nobody is obligated to take her sincerely.
The first hint that she was just peddling ideas to get money was when she and Jonathan McIntosh started a kickstarter for Feminist Frequency. The idea behind it was that they wanted to do it full time and if they reached their goals they'd produce several more videos on the tropes vs. women thing. Well they got all their funding and then some. And then some. Years later? Sure they released a few of the promised videos. Still waiting on all the rest.
Nevertheless she was catapulted into the limelight and she had this interview where she said she'd always been a gamer... and then earlier video came to light where Sarkeesian proudly proclaimed she wasn't a gamer and never really liked gaming--so she's lying to somebody.
Anyway, there's more to say but those are the broad strokes.
At the end of the day, if you're a feminist or an "ally" of feminism? You're probably going to enjoy what she has to say. If you're anyone outside those ideological circles? Likely not going to enjoy her.
It's really that simple.