Jump to content

Leccy

Members
  • Posts

    630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Leccy

  1. PC version worked fine for me too, but I wouldn't play it without a gamepad. Some of the class challenges are a bit more challenging due to poor control issues but can't recall anything else being too bad.

  2. There are numerous studies on the links between gaming and violence (rejected by supreme court and thoroughly discredited if memory serves), might want to look at those as a starting point for how videogames influence behaviour.

    Though obviously Anita comes more to it as a pop culture critic, you sound like you're considering a scientific approach, the difficulty there is that you'll need to decide on what you are measuring and then carry out research level analysis from data you produce, or use existing data and a causal link to prove some hypothesis. Might want to look at how corporations attempt to gamify behaviour, I recall reading about it a few years back and some strange emergent behaviour happens when normal working conditions are gamified.

  3. Guy comes across painfully sincere. He cares for his work and his audience. It hurts to hear constant insults about every aspect of everything constantly. And of course you've got every twat thinking they know you when they know next to nothing.

    In the post he does come across as sincere and I really feel bad for him going through such awful times and feeling terrible.

    In the past he has not come across as sincere at all though. I remember listening to him, back In 2008/2009 on warcraft radio.

    I remember visiting his youtube channel when it had a few thousand subscribers and a handful of Shining Force let's plays and a couple of videos of him killing some ghosts in warcraft.

    He used to either part own or manage the warcraft radio website and his internet radio show was its biggest draw. There were a few other shows on it too with a fraction of the audience. This all precedes his rise to internet stardom on the back of him being featured on mmo-champion which was a big site for warcraft at the time, and probably still is (I no longer play it so haven't kept up).

    I think he was inevitably going to become a big name in online communities though, it seemed like he worked to manic levels on self promotion as well as creating so many radio shows, youtube videos, blogs and written reviews of games.

    I really enjoyed his show at the time and I loved his parody changing of tunes to warcraft related songs. I'm not sure if it was a character he was playing or really his personality, but in the radio shows he came across as a right wing shock jock. I read a blog of his around that time where he questioned the intelligence of people who didn't believe in God whilst assuring us he had a really high IQ level. He used to constantly espouse the values of strong criticism, encourage nastiness and being caustic to players that played badly. He also used to encourage trolling (though back then the definition was probably more to do with playful japes rather than nastiness and harassment). All of this I found quite distasteful and it only increased when he rose to mega internet stardom. He would mock people disagreeing with him and shrouded himself in an (in my opinion) undeserved coat of gaming elitism. Having listened to countless hours of his early shows, I cannot stress enough how much he encouraged strong criticism, robust debate and trollish competitive nastiness. It was a message he repeated in some way almost every show.

    Now his audience numbers are beginning to slowly drop (I'm not sure why) and the stress he must be under must be insane, as he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would react well to minor set backs. And the attitude he's espoused and encouraged for years, are coming back to him.

    So. What to think. I find this sudden about turn on his part a little hollow and confusing. I wish that he hadn't cultivated this opinion in his fans for so long and used cynic as a byword for supercilious. I wish people wouldn't be nasty to him online so much - no one deserves that.

  4. Pre igniter is alright but I dont see any balancing effect between it and chain weapons.

    Pre igniter is not very useful against the last boss whereas the better chain weapons can almost solo him. They're ludicrously ovwrpowered in the final fights, almost game breaking considering how much harder the last boss is now.

  5. Why is piety so bad? It's kind of annoying that so few of the policy trees are useful. I keep trying to deviate from the tradition tree bit even on King level it just leads you to a massive handicap.

  6. I just don't get the all-or-nothing absolutism of some commentators. I think she's correct in the portrayal of women in games and media but can't agree with the appropriation of assets without permission. These two positions are not mutually exclusive or even related.

    I agree, it does tend to crop up time and again how all or nothing this whole topic is, it's so divisive. I sometimes wonder if that's why issues that lie around the topic are more discussed, than actual understanding and analysis of what the videos say.

  7. It silences or invalidates people's opinions. People in general don't like to not be reasoned with.

    If the goal is to expand a movement then it's a tactic I would not use. You need allies and power in numbers for a movement to be successful... it's a great shame ( to me ) that a number of leading feminist intellectuals and journalists subscribe to the check your privilege argument.

    I'm not exactly going to shout "reverse racism!" Every time I hear or read it, as that's not an accurate model, but the similarities to judging people's opinions by their colour, creed or persuasion are implicit in the statement.

    I've highlighted the bullshit so you can sit down and have a think about it. More specifically:

    - No-one is being silenced or invalidated, that I can see.

    - What is this "check your privilege" argument? Because I've never heard of it or anything like it. What do you mean by "check your privilege"?

    - What? Are you shitting me? Are you honestly comparing acceptance of the idea that your viewpoint is being influenced by your place of privilege in society to racism and homophobia?

    I don't think I did a very god job explaining what I meant at all. When I said "reverse racism" I specifically said that racism is a bad model. I mentioned it because I see a lot of trollish daily mail like comments making fun of the phrase and notion of privilege and I meant to distance myself from that mode of thinking.

    Without this context that statement is of course absurd, but I did not anticipate this level of analysis as an explanation. I assumed knowledge of the trope in this case, but I guess you are just not as familiar with online feminist boards as I am. I am quite moderate, please don't over project from what I am saying as you know it is an incredibly sensitive topic.

    What I was saying was that invalidation of opinions on the basis of socioeconomic status whether up or down is something that "check your privilege" has a tendency to do and that it is of no help to anyone. This is a common factor that it shares with persecution of minorities, a tendency to segregate and silence. Arguments for equality that are well constructed should stand regardless of the person.

    I was mostly attempting to appeal to moderatism, patience and reasonableness but I didn't make that clear.

    I often see that people who are turned off, repelled or whatever by feminism don't react well to the phrase. Saying something along the lines of "well you're privileged, you can't understand" does not help. It was mostly tangential to the conversation at hand and I'm not laying that accusation against anyone. Also even if you accept everything I say you can still use the phrase or its notion just be aware that it does not usually elicit a good response.

    You've still not answered a genuine question about your argument, "what do you mean by "check your privilege?".

    And this a paraphrasing of your own words: "the term [which I have not explained] 'check your privilege' [that I claim is used by feminist theorists but again have not explained or given an example of] while not a direct replacement for the term 'reverse racism' has comparable features to racism, religious persecution and homophobia that are implicit in the statement [a statement whose meaning I am yet to explain]." Show me the straw man, please.

    All you need to do is ask my to cite my sources. The definition in the below quote is a good one, and one I can agree with. But as you know words can be used and abused and carry different meanings in different contexts. So I can agree with the statement below while also pointing out it can be misused.

    As for the feminists that use the term often in ways I do not find helpful: PZ Myers, Rebecca Watson, Laurie Penny. This is from memory and I still find an awful lot to agree with them about. Feel free to dismiss this as I really don't seek to quotemine them so you could easily dismiss this for lack of sources.

    Like earlier mentioned in the thread I can be critical of how someone speaks whilst agreeing with their sentiments. That seems to me a reasonable stance to take given the stance of "Tropes vs Women" series.

    Actually, I got bored waiting and Googled it. This is what I got:Yeah, I can see why that would be infuriating, accepting that you've maybe found yourself through no fault or effort of your own in a position that places you better off than others and that putting yourself in someone else's shoes may help you realise how we treat certain people differently. It's such a vicious, horrible sentiment that.

    Nope, don't think it's vicious and horrible. I find that definition one I agree with. I find your need to characterise me with a hatred of that definition a bit overzealous but understandable given the poor explanation.

    Why the hell shouldn't I act pissed off? We've gone through this exact dance, what, fifteen times in this thread now? Someone goes, "oh, I don't see how any of this discussion of the issues of the representation of women in media are a problem and I don't think [one or more feminists including Anita Sarkeesian] are really making arguments that are necessary and I don't see how I'm missing anything", then we spend ten pages going over the same tedious explanations of why they're wrong, explanations that a cursory watch of the videos or reading a couple of Wikipedia pages would replace. And then when we're done, oh, here comes Captain Insight with his Truth Ray to reveal how silly all this is, because EXACTLY THE SAME THING THE LAST GUY SAID.

    This isn't a discussion; you need to engage with the material for it to be one of those. It's a conveyor belt of people coming in with exactly the same ignorance making the same comments over and over. Read. The Fucking. Thread.

    Jesus.

    If this is aimed at me: Don't lump me in with them. I've read the thread and given my analysis of Anita Sarkeesian's opinion that I have not seen previously, but I'm not like some superhuman who can memorise everything in a thread, I'm approaching this with as much honesty as I can. I seriously doubt I was saying the exact same thing considering I was approaching the topic with close to 10 years of interest and involvement with feminist discussion boards (and probably a massive amount of ingrained problems and misconceptions of my own)

    But you're right, there is certainly a consensus opinion in the thread that they're brilliant and you can approach them from this angle or some other context and find something insightful. This is helping those who are wrong (or as I would put it, of a different opinion to the quality or opinion of the videos in question) find something of use from her project. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

    That's what a thread on a forum is for in my opinion, allowing a good discussion hopefully without people losing their temper or patience - I actually found your willingness to be rude and condescending really annoying. I don't usually even bother responding in cases like these but I'm also trying to be patient. I actually think that if we were to sit down and talk in person, we probably agree on most things anyway.

    TLDR: Nah, just read it, I'm pretty moderate.

  8. Spacehost: it's not in my methods to be rude when asking someone to source or back up their arguments. Clearly this is not something we have in common. I did not clarify my position enough, perhaps I do need to revisit the concept.

    I specifically stated that people should be mindful of others opinions and societal hardships in a post I made previous page and then you summarised my opinion with the opposite. If that is not a strawman I don't even have a basis for communication with you, which is no loss to me and I suspect no loss to you.

  9. It silences or invalidates people's opinions. People in general don't like to not be reasoned with.

    If the goal is to expand a movement then it's a tactic I would not use. You need allies and power in numbers for a movement to be successful... it's a great shame ( to me ) that a number of leading feminist intellectuals and journalists subscribe to the check your privilege argument.

    I'm not exactly going to shout "reverse racism!" Every time I hear or read it, as that's not an accurate model, but the similarities to judging people's opinions by their colour, creed or persuasion are implicit in the statement.

  10. All feminism means at its basic level is believing in equal rights for women, while someone might not agree with the views of particular proponents, if someone say they're not a feminist they''re essentially saying "I don't believe women deserve equitable treatment to men". Which is why I always find it funny when the word is spat out with such venom by some.

    Sure. I agree with some of that. But I'm not looking at it basically. I think alot of people are put off with that approach and I count myself amongst them.

    I'm able to see that feminism is an awful lot more than just treating people equitably. It's a very fractuous and diverse movement. I certainly would never use the word as an insult. My basis for not self identifying as one while being a firm believer in equality goals is a right I claim and justify by looking at the whole of the movement and saying that I agree with the basics but not some of the more radical terms based on my own experiences.

    Not identifying with feminism is definitely not saying that one believes that women should be treated unfairly, I actually find that reasoning unnecessarily reductionist.

  11. I think people need to remember that these videos, as far as I recall, are mostly aimed at school children, and giving them the tools necessary to start questioning and debating what they see. I think they're perfectly successful at that. Anyone wanting to delve deeper into subject/object dichotomy can easily do so on their own.

    Leccy: why do you not identify as a feminist now?

    That's kind of my point. I would have a big problem with the videos being used in an academic sense. I don't believe she draws her arguments in such a way that withstands critiscism or demonstrates critical evaluation. Perhaps I am judging them too harshly, I feel her detractors are allowed far too much ammo against her due to strange inconsistencies. Still it's early days and as Alex correctly pointed out they might be addressed in a future video. It's just the standard so far does not leave me hopeful.

    I don't really know how to answer the why I can't identify with feminism question without sounding disrespectful but I will attempt to and please don't take offense. I've met far too many and read far too many articles by unscientific, hyperbole ridden radicals in the past few years. I am ( very broadly speaking ) anti censorship and anti authoritarian and find less and less to identify with in the movement although still sympathetic to the overall goals. Ironically it was partly motivated by one of Anita's early videos where she appeared to be in favour of male female apartheid and a social media post where she strongly condemned slutwalk that got me looking at what her detractors ( non troll ones ) were saying.

  12. I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what makes a clear definition in that case. From watching the video again she does repeat the same point over and over. I think you are right that she does attempt to do this in order to convey what is to her a simple idea. But the problem I see is that her definition is amorphous. She states that objectified women are acted upon and lack agency, but then later on states that those damsels that helped out the hero by having independent thoughts and actions are still objects because it was for the good of the hero's ordeal. To me this appears to be shifting her critical expectations to meet her world view rather than providing a clear definition.

    She also mentions subject object dichotomy which I looked into and it appears to be a philosophical concept regarding consciousness. To me that's a conflation and muddies the definition even more. I can't see how one could consider this clear.

    Also with Eva, that's a great example. Because Eva is undoubtedly sexualised for the player. But she also has a great deal of agency and her character is quite complex and has her own intentions. Anita clearly states that serialisation is a form of objectification. So is Eva objectified or not? I would have liked to have seen that sort of example explored further.

    To be clear I don't think this sort of issue debunks Anita or anything, but I hope it has explained at least why I can't see it as an issue she explored particularly well.

  13. Round we go again.

    Sexualised - generally speaking, men may be handsome or muscly or whatever in games, but they almost always have their own agency. If there's some that don't have agency, they are in the minority and they're more than balanced out by those that do.

    Women generally tend to be not only sexualised, but objectified. And objectification is demonstrably harmful. And also so common, insidious and widespread that we don't even blink an eye at it.

    If some men in some games (or other media) are also objectified that doesn't make it okay or even the scales. It just makes things even worse.

    Video on objectification because I'm guessing the 4 part essay I posted last time this came up is TL;DR

    I don't disagree strongly on any particular point here. What I was attempting to say was that both male and female portrayals in computer games both count as idealised and that I would have liked to have seen some effort by the "Tropes" series to provide her definition of what counted as a sexualised or objectified character. It's an extremely difficult concept to describe what is or is not objectification, but just a personal opinion of Anita's on this would have at least (in part) raised the videos to the level of academia.

    I believe it would have made a more interesting video because this issue has been explored many times without proviso, and for me at least, the "Tropes" series skims the issue in a way that I find extremely disheartening.

    I think that the almost ubiquitous hate for her opinions on YouTube might be lessened if Anita attempted to clarify her positions on these. Maybe it's just that people don't want to give her the benefit of the doubt. As it stands she has a whole bunch of antifeminists against her, as well as a great number of differently minded feminists, and a vast contingent of trolls so perhaps she's always going to have videos that are just unpopular.

    From my experience in different forums and boards I see alot more criticism than support, but I might not be getting the full picture on this.

    What I was also attempting to ask was is sexualisation something that is inherent because of market conditions, or could it be that culture can be changed to lessen demand for titillation? I'm of the opinion that it cannot be changed by cultural intervention, but possibly by law (which I am not in favour of). I am also of the opinion that the more women are paying for the market share of games, the less problem there will be with female objectification. Male objectification might just step in and take up the reins, though I personally don't see that as a major issue, at least not right now.

    As for agency, I'm not convinced that a sexualised woman with agency simply makes it all fine and dandy. Agency is an even more nebulous concept in what is already an extremely muddy issue.

    I probably would not self identify as a feminist. But I did, for years. Naomi Wolf is a personal heroine to me and I remember first reading about objectification and how it applies to both men and women from her.

    And Laci Green? I've been watching a lot of YouTube for years and I remember the videos she was putting out back then. Although her video is interesting enough, it does come from an author who is definitely guilty of what Naomi Wolf would call "self-objectification". I'm not saying she's a hypocrite, I'm saying this issue demands that we consider carefully what constitutes objectification, who profits from it and in what instances does it devalue the artistic or critical statement at hand.

  14. no, that's idealised - for the predominantly male players.

    male protagonists are idealised depictions of who males want to be. female characters are sexualised - who males want to have sex with.

    Probably both count as Idealised. The question is why so many idealised women in games are to make them all sexy? It may be a case where it's just pushed in there because "sex sells".

    Out of interest has the tropes series made any attempt to count the number of games and set a definition for this? ie. How many games released, how many of them seem to have sexualised characters, gender split, gender neutral or stuff like that? Would be good to see a breakdown of this per year.

    I see on the Kickstarter that the larger contributors get access to some source materials. Does anyone have access to this?

  15. I totally agree with the sentiment there, I enjoy playing games with female characters and think there should be more.

    But the weird market theory at the end leaves me a bit cold.

    That is, you could, in theory, make a hatful of money by making media with better balance in representation -- except that the idiotic old boys calling the shots at the top of the media have sewn up all the ways that your customers would find out about and buy your product.

    There are massive markets for games with very small bottlenecks to release and I'm not seeing any groundswell of female protagonists there (I want to know if there are btw, I could be lacking knowledge here) Very generally speaking that appears to directly contradict this weird theory that a small clutch of all controlling men are strangling or trampling over attempts to publish games with strong women.

  16. Overall I found it a very enjoyable watch. The list overall was very good at showing key milestones.

    The twitter comparisons at the end were a bit mystifying to me, they sounded more like a fanciful idea Brooker had been turning over in his head for a while and then cobbled together although I can sort of see where he's coming from.

  17. I think it's won me over just with it's atmosphere (Christmas Eve Batman is best Batman), story and pacing. All of which I think are better than the previous Arkham games.

    I know a lot of people don't like the story in this, even going so far as to call it stupid, but I don't see how you can play AC or AA and not think the same of them. I was always under the impression that the story in those was just poor and whacky because, hey, it's a video game. I really enjoyed it in this. I also liked how they relegated some of the assassin's to side missions, rather than having you bounce between them non stop in the story.

    The whole AC thing was a bit crap as well. I assumed they did it because they wanted to go more open world but they couldn't do Gotham properly. This game does Gotham justice, in my opinion. It genuinely feels like Christmas eve at times, and everyone except the criminals are inside because of the way Gotham is, rather than because the world has gone mad and let some nutter use part of the city as a prison because hey, it's a video game.

    However, I've played an awful lot of the previous games, to the point where it's like I don't even see the greater picture any more. All the cracks in the illusion are blatantly apparent to me, where as with this one I've just played it once.

    I totally see where you're coming from with this, I think I am looking at it a bit critically and I guess on first play it can withstand the scrutiny. However I find it less enjoyable than my third playthrough of AC which to me is an indicator of AC's overall quality.

    I can't seem to get around the twin facts that combat feels broken and traversal is just way too hit and miss, these are root gameplay issues and to me take precedence over most other aspects.

    But still, absolutely no civilians around? Even with the explanation of Gotham being a dangerous place at night, I still don't buy the fact that Batman is swooping down to hobos on a rooftop to beat them up and that gangs are prowling the streets openly. It's a videogame so these things don't really matter, but I don't see how one can say the atmosphere is well presented. It certainly loses any sense of coherence that AC still had a remnant of.

    I actually couldn't finish this game, so I guess I'm just not cut out to comment on it fully, perhaps the best is still to come, but I was left in the cold and quit after yet another random bug. Probably finish it over Christmas for that extra bit of atmosphere. :)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.