Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Toto téma bylo uzamčeno 
Pravidla a pokyny k diskuzím
Nahlásit tento příspěvek
So when has TB slammed a game type he didn't like in a WTF video?
Because I've seen all of his WTF and the games he's not all that fond of he'll still say good things about the.
Whether he likes it or not isn't a problem. As long as he point out the good stuff(if it has any) and the bad stuff it's all fine. As it's up to the user to make a decision on the matter. Even if he don't enjoy a game, that game will still get a lot of coverage.
I just see more problems if he where to have the mind set of a someone who likes the game. Because then he might skip over some of the bad flaws that people might find important to know.
Imaging if he all of sudden where to do a review of Call of Duty and be all happy and loving it instead. He'd praise all the stuff that they have changed and such. It'd absolutely ruin his reputation.
Except he's not, he just brings up valid complaints and supports them with incontrovertible evidence.
You can choose to have an informed opinion or not, but the simple fact is he proved angry joe is either stupid or a liar.
I meant how you commented about how TB was talking about the game he is reviewing at the same time as he is playing the game. The point of his review method is that he is giving a first impressions review, in the way that he is giving an opinion of the game as a first time player. I don't know how to explain it, but there is a bit of a difference between the way he reviews and the way nomal reviews are done.
That's fair, but I still think he could have an "first impression" by just talking over pre-recorded video, after-all he is replaying an level or segment he already played earlier. But as another person said earlier, his fans like his videos for that reason, so it's just me I guess.
His only problem with Joe is he made a some what false statement about females in the game. But he is still correct about it. Because the females in the game are either house wifes or prostitutes and not soldiers. Only a single female soldier in the entire game. No other female in the game holds a rifle or a gun. Of course you bang this girl later even when you done little stuff together with her. Females in the game are pictured as weak and simple.
He then complains about how the game have you kill thousands of men and all that. This wouldn't be a problem IF FEMALES WHERE PART OF IT. So once again Angry Joe is correct.
Fallout did it far better, showed female being able to be soldiers, fight alongside men and go on their own adventures. Hell you can you have them alongside with you. You don't see people ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ about that game.
So in short, females are sexualized in this game. They can only take of children or be ♥♥♥♥♥♥ for other men. The one soldier who is female is the one you sleep with and sure enough she too become a female with a kid in town. So total amount of female soldiers got to zero.
Anita sarkeesian represents feminism today, not extremist feminism, but feminism in general, she is the main stream, its why she's given the industry ambassador award, and constantly invited onto mainstream media and cited as the prominent representative of games and "victim" of misogyny in video games. She is so prominent she has people like angry joe doing her bidding.
Angry joe is correct about nothing. You are bending over backwards to defend that level of deliberate dishonesty. You clearly didn't watch the video because the females in that game are not what you say, and he shows it as such. Its game of a post apocalyptic future, its set in a gritty reality, not in a fantasy reality, meaning most women would not be on the front lines. Women are given support roles in such conditions because guess what, women are physically weaker than men. And its not a wonderful job men are given in such situations, they are expendable fodder as seen in the game. The females are not pictured as any more simple or weak than then men. You seem to be almost viewing it through the same sjw filter as angry joe.... you want a quota for some reason as if that makes something more realistic. Surely I guess a game about north koreans being the villians you should see 50% black people in their army, you know, for diversity, and make half of those female right? I'm not sure you think you know what you are asking for.
Fall out is a different property, they made different fictional choices in narrative and thats fine, but claiming a game has to promote some kind of ridiculous sjw propaganda just misses the point, that its supposed to be a game, and it really just amounts to censorship of taste. You want diversity? Guess what you are going to have to tolerate that some games are actually going to be more realistic than fall out. No army in the world sends its women in on the front lines in some grinding battle for survival, not as a first resort. Its not open minded or noble to send your sister into battle before yourself, or your mother. Its frankly just stupid. The genders are different and people who can't acknowledge it really are just ignoring reality. When stories resort to placing females on the front lines in soldier roles, either the setting is some what cartoonish or disconnected from reality or are based in fantasy. The only realistic situation where females would be on the front line in a post apocalyptic future is if most of the men were already dead, and in metro, it hasn't reached that point yet.
Females are sexualized? How many, again, you are doing the angry joe thing. Or are you just arguing from a prudish angle, where you are outraged that strippers exist at all in such a reality, that amounts to a type of censorship, where you can't even acknowledge that when a society breaks down, such things will exist. Hell, they exist even if society doesn't break down, because sexuality is part of human nature, and for some reason feminists have trained you to deny that sexuality exists, feminists, aka the new fundamentalist church have taught you to be ashamed of human sexuality. Sex workers shouldn't be depicted because why? M rated games are for little children? No, such games deal with adult narratives, dealing with the realities of the adult world. Sexuality is part of that world. How is murder just fine but acknowledging sexuality is not. Eincrou counted the number of strippers in that game, they were not the majority and your fixation on them says more about you than anyone else really. Sjw are sex obsessed, to the point where all you can see are the "strippers", all the other females in the game apparently do not register with a sjw's brain after they see a single stripper... but this is to be expected. Feminism has become like fundamentalist religion in so many ways, and who is more sex obsessed than a religious fundamenetalist....
This guy explains a bit on why gender in narrative matters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5L2MBPBl3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etZRsZP64Xg
Women and men are just different. Just ask yourself, would women been ok with the movie titanic if the roles were reversed in that film. Jack lives because he let the girl sacrifice herself for him. Would you respect him? Would even women respect him? Ask yourself why if men and women are just the same...
Its not valid to slam a story based on some kind of gender quota fixation you have in your head. And furthermore angry joe went so far beyond that, by deliberately misrepresenting the game to smear it. It was just indefensible dishonesty from a prominent reviewer abusing his position of power. He has a responsibility to be honest when reviewing a game, otherwise his words are worthless.
Anyways by your standards a film like saving private ryan is horrifically sexist because there are no female soldiers..... you want to see dead women on those beaches right? You want to see them suffer, mangled corpses, stabbed slowly, watch them die. Is that your moral good?
Do you ask to shoot more women in video games? So you can watch their heads explode?
Do you want to stab more women in video games?
You know..to be fair!!
Only good hearted social justice warriors want that kind of fairness right?
To be consistent you have to say you'd enjoy a game more if you had more chances to kill women. 50% of the murdered mooks should be women to fit your tastes, dead women everywhere. It should feel no different to anyone killing that many women, that is the feminist ideal....
Anita sarkeesian is a troll.... Full stop. Now enough talk of that witch...
Seriously though, she is an attention seeking troll. Can we not bring up her name in this thread. The uttering of her name poisons any discussion.
Yeah, she isn't that good source of opinion and that award is just silly.
Oh so Women are only supposed to be at home all the time then? That they can't protect them self, can't use a weapon. They are too weak. And is only good for few things? After a certain age they no longer have the ability to get a child. So no reason for them staying home. i'm pretty sure there are women who would rather go outside the place of comfort instead of being a woman who spawn children or just look after the place. Also the women are generally weaker than men is a pretty lame reason.
So anyone over age 50 is a burden to the society in that place because they are no longer valuable. So just better for them to explore new routes and learn as much as they can about the area and pass on information. But nope, they are gonna stay home and never leave the place. We don't even see them defending the town, its always the men who do that.
I'm just getting tired of the same men are evil, you only kill men. Females can't use a gun and you can't shot a single female in the game. I don't ask for 50% should be females, but saying 100% of the army is just men doesn't seems realistic to me. Because if you send men all the time the genepool is gonna be pretty bad.
You can be 150cm tall and still kill a 2m tall man who trained his body all his life due to the fact you carry a rifle. That alone make the argument you made pointless. You don't leave the base without a weapon. They can sit behind a machine gun in a armed position and do the same support as a man can.
But instead the men are the strength, only they can protect the kids and females and only they can kill people. Its thank to them the people are still alive. Only they are brave enough to venture outside the comfort of the home.
WW2, I'm sure women where brought in later in the war because they started to outnumber the men and since we where killing poeple in the millions it sure had an effect. Jobs started to hire females for men dominated job because men where sent to war all over the place. But then women where often excluded to be in a armed conflict. But was still needed to win the war.
Where does TB call them reviews?
Diffrentces
reviewers have/are
1. completed the game
2. summarizing the facts.
3. accounting their experance as to determine if the game has lived up the there expectations
4.Review are usally giving the experience of the reviewer game and are written about a single game
where as first impressioner
1. haven't completed the game
2. not much summarizing or fact base stuffl at all
3..they have limited knowledge of the game so talking about fact can be tricky althought some First impressioner will add info such as repoted problems, the devs history ect so they can get some factual content in there
4.first impressions are videos showing unedited gameplay footage of a single game, featuring commentary from whoever is playing the game
i don't think i really answered your question. This is probably because i don't make revives and first impression vids so my understanding of them is limited at best (i only figure this out after i started typing).
His videos and interviews.
Even his description for his 'WTF' series pretty much call them reviews in all but name. They serve the exact same function for all I can see, to tell the viewer if the game is worth buying, is that not exactly what reviews are supposed to be?
As for your list of comparisons, not all reviews have to beat the game, TB does research the game before he plays it (like most reviewers do) and do you not also think his "first impressions" cannot still be improved with a neat summerisation at the end? Actually TB does take pride in spending time in the video talking about the factual stuff - bugs, menu options, texture popping, frame rates etc.
Fair enough.
Women in combat tends to either be a luxury, or a dire necessity. The truth is there isn't much front line fighting these days, and a woman can fly a drone just as well as a men, that is true. But women are part of modern western forces because the truth is we aren't going to engage in trench warfare in any forseeable future. War for survival is about brutal logic, if you waste, you lose. Strategic/minor wars of choice are a different matter.
But in metro you aren't fighting a war of choice, you are fighting a war for survival, in such conditions, you use every last resource in the best way possible, "fairness" quotas no longer are a luxury you can tolerate. Put it this way, if you are sparring in a judo match, and the other person is smaller and weaker than you, you aren't going to go out of your way to humiliate them, it wouldn't be cool. Thats what the luxury of modern life allows. In brutal survival situations you just use your advantage to kill them. If its unfair, thats how it is, there is no fair.
When you see old men and young boys on the front line, like in the last days of the reich, thats when things have gone bad. The soviets resorted to women as well but again, their situation was dire, and they had very little concern for human life, but still, it was mostly male soldiers who were shot in the back by commisars if they dared give ground.
And no, just because war is fought with guns, doesn't mean that a womans relative lack of strength no longer is relevant. War is grinding and stamina and the toughness of people to tolerate really harsh conditions over long periods matters, a woman being weaker is more prone to injury,. Women's leg geometry is compromised to accomodate child birth, which explains the prevalence of acl injuries in female athletes who don't even participate in violent sport. They will literally crumple just landing a jump. So long grueling marches with heavy packs and the rest are going to take a serious toll on women vs men. These things already take a heavy toll on even men, which is why the army is concerned about lowering pack weight. Mother nature like war, isn't fair. Even mens skin is thicker than womens. Women evolved the way they did over millions of years because why....because they didn't need to be as a strong as men, men were bred to be expendable, and so thats what you see. Everything has a cost and natural selection made it clear that women didn't need to spend the energy to be as strong as men and thats fine. and it also points out the lie about how women were supposedly abused for all of human history, no, if that were so only the toughest women would survive and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
No one said anything about modern women staying home. but in post apocalyptic stories if you are going to be realistic, both the old, the young, and the women would not be spent on the front lines of a war. Its a waste of your scarce human resources to do such a thing.
And actually demanding that they allow the player to inflict more violence upon female npc's is strange. While it would be more literally equal, it isn't the same. Ever wonder why feminists like anita find every abuse of a woman in game or media a tragedy and don't give the suffering or deaths of the countless men a second thought? Its because even they subconsciously buy into the notion, the instinct of seeing men as expendable. Its probably somewhat innate because in any society the survaval of women is more important for the long term survival than the survival of its men, you can lose most of the men and the population can recover, lose the women and its game over.
Beyond that women simply choose not to, even in peace time to take on that kind of physical burden. How many of the people sweating on hot roofs spreading tar, or working on the roads spreading hot asphalt either in the sun or the cold of night are women? Most jobs involving physical burden and danger are taken by men even in modern society, there is a reason why so many women work in HR.
So its neither good to be so unaware of human nature that like anita sarkeesian, only the deaths or abuse of women are of concern to you, to a point where they demand censorship. And its also not good to ask for an equalization of violence against both genders because that too just doesn't sit well with people for both innate and rational reasons.
Anyways....this is WAAAAAAY off the topic of the thread (even for the off topic forum). This discussion was about youtube personalities lol.