Jun 23

“What is the controversy”
” basically it’s

>”muh women””

“”muh” is actually a necessary word; if it was “their women” then it’d have no power at all, cause who the fuck cares about their women unless they’re imminently to join “muh” women?

that being said for whatever reason all women seem to automatically be in the “muh” category, which is funny because Elliot Rodger & co. it gets even funnier once you start to figure out which women are and aren’t “muh” and then take a second look at “controversies”.”

“Amen, and therein lies the crux of the issue, even if Ubisoft caved into their demands and added a female character, if she so much as looks “sexist” the feminists will re-initiate the crusade until she basically looks like a muslim veiled woman.
If Ubisoft add a female character and she’s good looking, then its win-win for us as far as I’m concerned.

In fact Ubisoft should release a female and have her in the most revealing and sexy clothing with breasts practically showing and declare “here’s your female character, now fuck off”

Shit that would be great.”

” But if they’d create an ugly female, they’d complain about it too.
They can never win unless they simply ignore them and pretend they don’t exist.
It’s not like they’re the target demographic that actually buys their games.”

“I think judgment of whether a game is good or not is meaningless.”
“I disagree. Some games are better some are worse.”
“Yeah but by the time you get halfway into your explanation people don’t care to listen to what you’re saying anymore. Your judgment about the game says more about you than about the game.”
“Granted a discussion of game mechanics probably isn’t interesting to people not interested in game design, but that doesn’t mean anything because most people don’t want arguments or reasoning about anything anyways. Yet certain games do well and others don’t, and there’s a pattern that I can point out. If you lose interest while I am explaining doesn’t that say more about you than the validity of my arguments?”

__________________

“To clarify: the important criticism here is not that the multimillion dollar CME industry is a gigantic money making scam, something on the level of the 15th century sale of indulgences, because to say that would be actually to defend that very system: the money is a diversion, a patsy, what is corrupt about CME isn’t the money but, as the default mechanism for continuing education, it subverts its own purpose. It reduces the interest in actual education so that it can pretend that it explicitly monitors it. If you have a minute to spend on your “education,” the system pushes you towards CME. “Why not do both?” Why do both, who can do both? There are only 24 hours in a day. In other words, the system doesn’t just fail, it forces failure.”

“The force for this change isn’t coming from safety or ethics. Neither is it activism. If you see any group advocating influentially for change in a media they don’t own or control, you can double down and split the 10s, the dealer is holding status and quo. No change is possible on someone else’s dime, and if what looks like a supermodel approaches you with a microphone and a camera crew, you should run like she’s Johnny Carcosa. On occasion what the activists think they want may happen coincidentally to align with what the system wants, and from that moment on they will be lead to believe they are making a difference, which means they’re making money for someone else.”

“”Cyberbullying is a huge problem!” Yes, but not because it is hurtful, HA! no one cares about your feelings– but because criticism makes women want to be more private– and the privacy of the women is bad. The women have to be online, they do most of the clicking and receive most of the clicks. Anonymous cyberbullying is a barrier to increasing consumption, it’s gotta go.”

“For every American senator trying to curb anonymity there’s going to be a Scandinavian cyberpirate who will come up with a workaround, and only one of them knows how to code.”

“”But you can’t use a pen name at places like The New Yorker. You know they pay their top staff writers $100k a year?” Jesus. a) yes you can; b) listen to me: if those swindlers are willing to pay you $100k, then you could probably get $200k yourself, and if you can’t get $200k yourself then you aren’t worth their $100k either and they will eventually notice. When they pay you that much they’re not paying you to write for them, they’re paying you not to write for anyone else, that’s called controlling the capital.”

“Every woman has some version of this story, with one important difference: Amy was a medical student, which meant a lot of money went into her and a lot of money was expected of her. One (1) phone call from the Dean to a phone number that was not 911 and that guy was evaporated. Two cops located him minding his own business, and because he defended himself with the magic words– and you should write these down, they’re gold– “it’s a public street, I have a right to be here”– he was jailed for eight months for harassment and resisting arrest– pre-trial. Pre means without. Of course his case was ultimately dismissed.”

“Sometimes the structural imbalances go your way, and sometimes they don’t, better figure out who makes the scales.”

“So the system encourages women like Hess to “critique the patriarchy” or “bring awareness” because it stands no chance of moving the money, let alone the power, and also the media gets a cut. Meanwhile men all over the place are left questioning why their opportunities are just as limited but their answer can’t be a glass ceiling. “Maybe it’s reverse sexism!” Maybe your media is no different than her media, we’ll see what kind of sexism there is when the robots replace all of you. What is both obscene and astonishing in its power is that this distraction is foisted on Millennials by other Millennials, they’re fighting for the other team, precisely because the immensely hard work of work can be avoided by hoping the problem is sexism. Hess is frantically fighting against– whom? Cyberbullies? Frat guys? Stand up comedians? What are the results she expects from this fight? The fight is a symptom of neurosis, frantic energy as a defense against impotence, frantic energy as a defense against change. “Why am I in the top 20% of intelligence but I’m running the register at a store whose products I can’t afford?” Because trolls are preventing women from earning a living online? “So it’s Reddit’s fault!””

“There was a time not long ago when the dumbest people in the world were polacks. Do you see any dumb polacks around today? What happened? “Awareness?” Do you think we all just learned “poles are just like us?” You think it was… education? Pole empowerment? Tolerance? The question is not how did we learn to get over that prejudice, but rather what purpose did it serve in the first place, why was it the preferred expression of hate of that time?”

“First of all, Maxim is already for nerds, who else would want to look at glamour shots of still dressed women only women have heard of?”

“”If I were Kim Kardashian, then I would be able to do X!” is NOT envy, flip it over and read the redacted obverse: “Only Kim Kardsahians can do X — therefore it’s not my fault that I can’t!””

“Don’t think about where the lines are drawn, think about who draws the lines.”

“”If only you were the girl I thought you were!” he said, paraphrased. But of course she was the girl you thought she was– she picked you. When you pick a woman for certain reasons, you are also picking the kind of woman who wants to be picked for those reasons.

__________________

“They really do have some severe mental issues. Just ignoring the body mutilation at this point, their victim complex is unbelievable. Everything is a personal attack against those things.

There must be studies on these shits.”

“>Boob physics
boobs have physics in real life too

are they aware?

probably not”

“>Ubisoft complains females are hard to animate
>OMFG SO SEXIST

>CD Projekt gives women a whole physics and animation system unique to them
>OMFG SO SEXIST

What do these people want?”

“Control you dinguses. That’s why they leave it so vague. They want control through fear of political incorrectness.

>Company/group/whatever not in bed with them does something
>they twist it through linguistic gymnastics and litter it with bombast to make it sound sexist/intolerant/ etc
>most of society sees something labeled as “intolerant” or in anyway opposing the flagship terms of the left and reacts to it negativity because we’re taught those are things all good people support
>what is actually happening and going on gets ignored under the angry tweets of the social media bandwagon in a race to be the first offended
>bad pressbad pressbad pressbad pressbad pressbad pressbad pressbad pressbad pressbad press
>previously mentioned entity now labeled as bigoted hate group to general populous

Manipulation, misinformation, appealing to the general public’s constant desire to have their existence validated and be told they’re good people and their knee-jerk reactions to prove these things. They want control over the public with misrepresentation and control over companies with political correctness. Just think about a time when you saw people here lose their shit because someone posted something that someone may have said and someone may or may not ever actually prove. Shit happens everyday. Sad part is on average people here are still more informed than the people these fucks use for their own purposes.”

“>compliments are sexist
Nobody actually says that.”

“Actually, yes, they do, if you tell a woman “you look great today” its considered sexist because it.
>Promotes rape culture.
I still dont get this one, but they also say paying for a woman’s dinner promotes it, and not paying promotes it.
>Enforces the stereotype that women are only beautiful when a man tells them they are.

I dont make these rules anon, I just snicker at them.”

“Why is it “unfortunate” to write a character being attractive?
How is that “unfortunate”?
Is being attracted to someone “unfortunate”?
Would the game directly benefit from having unattractive characters? Would that actually make the game better?”

“Muh muh feelings.
Muh muh insecurities.
Muh mudgenes and/or laziness.
It’s all privilege. The excessive whining about privilege other people have is a sign. It’s to ramp up feminists’ need to gain power and privilege.”

“Don’t you know? White males aren’t actually allowed to do create things or else it will just be sexism.”

“Haven’t you noticed? They always use vague words like “unfortunate” or “problematic” when they have an issue with something but can’t give an objective reason why it’s actually bad.”

“It’s not about making a character attractive, it is about sexual objectification. I’m not surprised that you are too stupid to deal with the real arguments that feminists make, so let me spell it out for you. Feminists don’t think all female characters should be “ugly”, they simply think that female characters shouldn’t be turned into and portrayed as fetish objects. The Witcher is very guilty in that respect. Even Triss, who is supposedly a strong female character, needs Geralt to save her and then wants to fuck him because he is a manly man who helped her.”

“>sexual objectification
I don’t think this is a thing that actually exists.

>hey simply think that female characters shouldn’t be turned into and portrayed as fetish objects
This is impossible, considering the innumerable amount of fetishes in the world.

>Even Triss, who is supposedly a strong female character, needs Geralt to save her and then wants to fuck him because he is a manly man who helped her.
Strange how nobody ever complains when a male character needs help from others. Of course, men understand perfectly well that no man is an island. How do you think militaries work, for example?”

“>Whether or not a character is meant to be a fetish object is what’s important
How can you say for sure what the author did or did not mean? And why is it even inherently bad for a character to be designed with a fetish in mind?

>1. It was out of character for her and was thrown in merely so she could be put into a submissive position before Geralt fucked her
I don’t care and haven’t played any of the games.

>2. Women are portrayed this way for sexist reasons constantly
That’s an assumption, and is it still sexist if it’s an accurate representation of reality?

>3. Men are rarely, if ever, put into the “damsel in distress” role
It happens all the time, you just ignore it.”

“Despite muh 60% or whatever, females don’t buy singleplayer games, they play social games on facebook. And the few females who do buy singleplayer games don’t care about tits either, or maybe they even like it.

Not every girl is automatically a prude SJW. Normal girls like to feel sexy and like to see women portrayed in a positive and sexy light. It is only the most dried up bitter cunts that have a problem with female sexuality. This is also why I don’t worry about this, they are in a extreme minority and will never win simply because they don’t have the numbers.

Look at the real world. If you allow them, women will dress as slutty as they can get away with it because they fucking love it.”

“Everybody and everything is an object. That’s the point. You don’t look at a sexual being and wonder about their career or their family life. There is a limit to political correctness.

And the entire idea of a ‘respectable’ sex appeal is such a hackeneyed American idea based around the fear of being shown anything sexual. You guys are so used to extreme censorship that you actually think that’s how it actually works.

There is nothing wrong with visual sex appeal. Absolutely none. It’s the American prudes who are acting like the freaks in this situation.”

“>So a woman will reward you by showing you some skin if you do well at the game.
Just like real life!”

“>We’re still a progressing society, so heres to hoping in the next few years we’ll come to understand each other clearer (males and females in media)

The most arrogant string of words I’ve ever read.

“We” who? “Still”, as in it’ll stop at some point? How long has it been progressing, at what rate, and why is it called progress? Which “society”? If you know so much about history and the direction of human civilization to be able to give an overall diagnosis not only on what it’ll be doing, how it’ll be doing it, but at what kind of rate it’ll get there at, what’s this garbage talk about “hoping” that “we” (who?) will “understand”? Shouldn’t you know what’s going to happen based off of all your god-level knowledge, or are you too dumb to figure it out?

Or maybe you’re just pulling shit out your ass?”

“In reality the ‘feminist movement’ in videogames is just publishers trying to make an easy buck off of stupid humans, as humans are apt to do.”

“Other than maybe being in bad taste, what exactly is wrong with having scantily clad women in video games?

Sure, I’d like more well-written female characters that are more than just eye candy, but what exactly is wrong with eye candy?”

“Alright.

The issue comes from the fact that if a woman is eye candy, some (for example SJW) see this as that character’s only trait. So if a woman is scantily clad or otherwise “lewd”, these people think of this character as not only shallow, but also as a tool by the people who created this character as nothing but eye candy. The problem with this logic is that for example Bayonetta is definitely a lewd ay ay ay mami, but that doesn’t mean she’s an emptyheaded bimbo or that her looks only serve as fap-material. There’s also another opinion that these people also have, and it seems like they change between them at will, and that’s that women are stron(k)g and independynt and don’t need no man, so of course a woman can be scantily clad and have sex with whomever she wants, BUT there’s nothing wrong with this because she’s, like I said, a stron(k)g woman. A woman decides what she’ll do with her body, not just appearance-wise but also physically.
So on one hand these people see scantily clad women, in for example video games, as something “bad” because they themselves make the connection to the creator and how this person supposedly makes a “fool” out of this female character and that she’s nothing but her looks; and then on the other hand, they also believe that women should be empowered and do what they want because they are equal to men, sometimes better, so if a woman is good looking and a sex-bomb, it’s good.

tl;dr
Nothing”

“This post has an interesting point in terms of once a character has been “objectified,” by their sexiness anything else about them seems to be ignored. This is why Samus has gotten so much shit since she got the Zero suit even though she’s still a great character.

I always thought the girls in the Dead or Alive series were cool because they’re the most active and most important characters in the story. They don’t rely on men to solve their problems for them, they don’t passively sit around and wait for their issues to get resolved by someone else, they get in there and do fisticuffs until they get what they want. But most people don’t notice that compared to THE BOOB PHYSICS and THE SLUTTY COSTUMES and THE VOLLEYBALL SPINOFF and that bums me out.”

__________________

“>According to this developer, there is ”definitely a lot of push coming from publishers to not make the experience so different on consoles as to alienate people in to that next generation isn’t as powerful as PC.”

>In reference to The Division, the anonymous source went on to explain how the team is already downgrading the game’s graphics: “Right now we already took out quite a lot of screen space reflections from the game and are working on asset management as best as we can given the consoles unified memory.”

>Despite all of this though, apparently the PC is still the lead platform, Ubisoft just won’t let us use our hardware to its full potential: “Yes, the lead platform is PC but we simply cannot have such a big gap.””

“So is Ubisoft going to gimp their PC games for the rest of this generation?”

“Well seeing as how they gimped their PC games for all of last generation…”

“You don’t get it do you? It’s ALL intentional. The “lazy porting” is intentional. Devs don’t want consoletards to cry and shit their diapers when they find out that their consoles can’t even do PC’s low settings.

And it’s not just Ubisoft, it’s every publisher. Ever wonder why for the last five years the difference between “very low” and “ultra” settings on PC is virtually unnoticeable? It’s because they ARE the same fucking settings. Devs have to tone down everything so that there’s no controversy about why PC gets amazing graphics and consoles get shit. But they still need to keep hardware companies happy, so they intentionally unoptimize the game so that you still need a GTX890 to run a game that should be able to be maxed out with a GTX480.”

“Well, the ironic thing is that the new consoles are SO weak that a lot of console players may lose interest/refuse to upgrade since the graphics aren’t much better on PS4/XBone despite the fact that devs are saying they’ve already hit the ceiling on what they can do with those consoles. The consoles are so weak that it’s likely that even fucking tablets (and eventually even phones) will surpass them in power in the not too distant future. Also, unless the consoles see a large price within the next year, it will be possible to buy a gaming PC on par with a PS4/XBone for just as much as, if not less than the cost of a console.

What’s going to happen is that either the console makers are all going to have to release new, much more powerful consoles within the next 2-3 years (unlikely, too expensive to rush R&D especially when they wouldn’t have even recouped their sink costs for the current generation) or people are going to start fleeing to PC, most likely in the form of Steam Machines. The flight to PC isn’t actually too unrealistic; it was already in the last 2 years of last gen, and it’s still happening now to a lesser extent.”

“The true reason why they downgrade is because if console babbys see how good PC’s graphics are, they will literally shit their diapers in unison.”

“>PC people build strong computers to play multiplats all pretty
>game devs force PCs to run at the same level as consoles
Must feel weird being a PC gamer
Nobody is on your side”

“>They buy every cinematic AAA shooty/murder game, then they trade it in towards the next one.

Which is, when you think about it, the perfect business model for publishers. They release AAA piece of shit, the console kids buy it day 1 for full price, and then when they realize it’s crap they just sell it back to Gamestop. Publisher makes tons of money, no one holds them accountable for quality or forces them to change, and the industry gets worse every year.”

“They never ‘realize it’s shit’.

They simply play it while it’s popular, never finish it, and then take it to Gamestop or sell it off.

It’s even worse on PC. Many PC players buy games but never so much as play them (approximately 37% of them, and 72% never finish the games they start).

Game enthusiasts have more money than sense, really.”

“I fault people for being irresponsible with money.

Just because clothes are on sale doesn’t mean you should buy clothes you’re unlikely to wear or have no space (or time) for.”

“>YFW Crysis 1 on PC will still look better in 2007 than the bext looking console game in 2019.”

“It’s Still really early In this gen. The graphics and the games themselves will continue to get better as more and more devs are able to get their hands on the tech. Ubisoft is doing by releasing games so early. they are testing the waters and paving a way for things to come. Somebody has to do this trial and error shit.”

“This is almost the same as having family over, and a 3 year old shit slinger wants to play a competitive game with you. You’re not allowed to beat him, you have to let them win sometimes, and that’s just unbearable to deal with”

“>mfw PC games NEED handicaps so that console players don’t feel unfair
We literally have to try not to win at this point”

“Nope. This is not happening. x86 hardware has over 3 decades of books written on optimizing for hardware. DX11 has been around for at least 6 years and a lot of books have been written of that API along with a fuck ton of optimization work that has been done for it.

Microsoft just started talking about the work that DX12 is going to do, and they say that its compatible with existing hardware. But the simple fact is that hardware that is made from the ground up is going to do DX12 better than hardware that has DX12 tacked on: that’s XB1, PS4 is still OpenGL.

XB1 and PS4 games won’t look better with time, they will however stop dropping frames in a few years FOR a few years, then you’ll go back to sub30 framerates in order to squeeze in more graphical techniques so that the marketing department doesn’t go out of business.

And executives up top will continue pushing for this, because they think that without an overinflated marketing budget, the game will flop. So that cycle won’t ever end either.

This generation of consoles are fucked and will be dead within 5-6 years.

If AMD achieves even half of this in the next 5 years: http://phys.org/news/2014-06-amd-reveals-25x-efficiency-gains.html

Next-gen consoles are gonna get horribly destroyed.”

“Graphics directly affect gameplay possibilities.”

“An ugly picture doesn’t ruin the actual art and meaning behind it.”

“The medium with which you present the game defines the limitations of said game.

Let’s look to the past: PC games had no capability of emulating famous nintendo side scroll. Until Carmack found a way, an entire genre of games (and the highest selling, highest rated one at the time) was completely barred from the platform. There was no hard graphical way for a PC to reproduce that smooth scroll. Luckily, Carmack found a way – thus opening up the entire PC platform to 2d side scrolling platformers.

Let’s look at the present: Just for an example look at Assassin’s Creed’s huge crowd models. Being able to support such large crowds (which they promise will triple in number than what we’ve seen so far) influences level design and gameplay. 6 years ago you would never have seen a game present you with the challenge of assassinating a target by hiding in large crowds and traversing a city vertically. 5 years ago the closest and most revolutionary thing was Hitman Blood Money’s Mardi Gras level. But besides simple scripts of the crowd reacting to the players violence there was nothing. With AC we see the crowd not only interact with the player but also with itself, setting up for opportunities to stumble upon generated quests like the man being bullied by soldiers or the another man being killed in the street to the wonderment of a crowd. You could say these were scripted for the demo, but today it’s just as plausible to believe it was dynamically generated interactions.

Then you have the issues of frame rate and draw distance making entire genres of games possible like fighting games or racing simulators.

Graphics isn’t just raw beauty shots or photorealism circlejerking. Graphics are the gateway with which we see new kinds of games and new ways for the player to interact with the game.”

“>DAO is bad because “give gifts until sex falls out”
>The Witcher makes me go yesssssssss
>Geralt gets sex from women for giving them a flower or giving another one a jewel.”

“The SJWs don’t know what they want or ever realize their hypocrisy. They literally just complain.”

“>. It just felt like a Band Of Fantasy Characters.

THAT’S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET UPPITY AND DEMAND ANYTHING THAT COULD BE DEEMED OFFENSIVE BE TAKEN OUT OF THE WRITING. You get generic, bland sex dolls. This is partly RPS’ fault in the first place.”

“SJW’s are fickle. They don’t know what they want. They speak in vague descriptions rather than solid ones so when one person in their group finds something objectionable, they can quickly change their opinions easily to work with the group thought.

They don’t want equality. They want someone that’ll bow to every little demand they come up with, no matter how irrational it may sound. The video game industry has become the sugar daddy of SJW’s.”

“social justice warriors are an offshoot of cultural marxists and critical theory. Critical theory is a technique designed to undermine a society/civilization so that ‘the revolution’ can happen after it’s collapse. It attempts to achieve this by constantly ‘criticizing’ everything. In this context, you can not ever make a cultural marxist, or in this case a social justice warrior, happy. They aren’t trying to advocate positive changes or make any kind of actual progress (although they will claim the contrary). Every time you capitulate to their ideological demands, a little bit or a lot, they simply criticize your actions as being insufficient and demand more.”

“>Bioware panders to SJWs more than any dev seen before
>SJWs still offended

There is no pleasing these lunatics”

“>DAI romance characters are equivalent to Witcher hookers.

are you fucking serious?”

“How would I know? I haven’t played DAI

also, all women are whores.”

“There’s a theory in marketing that people don’t know what they want until you give it to them. Giving people what they want is a bad idea because most of the time people actually don’t know what they want and once they have it will never be what the were expecting it to be.

As such, it is better to give something to someone and tell this is what they’re getting. It removes the factor of choice, which is one of the primary factors in unhappiness.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s