America entered both world wars at the right time to turn the tide. Did they singlehandedly defeat the Germans in both and the Japanese in the second? No of course not. But criticizing only America's faults during the war and not the brutalization of the German populace at the hands of the Russians really just seems hypocritical and anti-American.
leif3141's forum posts
In the past several months I have had several unpleasant encounters with strangers while walking my dog in various places. I was wondering what people would recommend for recording purposes of a device I could wear or carry with me in case I needed it for the purposes of personal LEGAL protection? I'm wondering if an audio device would be good enough, or if it should record visual stuff as well. I'm not asking for recommendations on a weapon to carry or anything, there's like a million places for that. I just mean something that could have recorded a couple of bad encounters as of late...I wouldn't want something incredibly bulky, and something that has a clip or strap would be nice. Any recommendations? I looked on amazon but not even sure what category to really look under...
@LJS9502_basic said:
@leif3141 said:
Let's look at the statement in question -
"What ever happened to gaming just being gaming? Why does a persons sexuality, race or gender have to be wrapped up in it? Why hasn't a tall, blonde, German been the main character of a Grand Theft Auto game? I'm going to stomp my feet and throw a fit now. ......lol
Why cant we all just shut the **** up and play games?"
You agreed with this statement. Clearly gender, race, sexuality had already BEEN brought up, BY THE PREVIOUS USER who made the statement (and everyone else in the thread) but the quote was the complete dismissal of it. That is still referencing it. Even the absence of acknowledgement of the argument still means you are in the discussion. So then I point out that I don't agree with the dismissal and give an example why I think this attitude is wrong to have, and the fact the issue is not as simple as you claim it, and you stated that it wasn't applicable to the situation. Do you know what applicable even means? That's where the argument started. I never said you must agree with everything I said regarding video games and whether or not characters are portraying annoyingly at times, but my main point is you seem to think that even though someone is directly referencing something you and everyone else in the thread is being discussed, its somehow not applicable. A non-applicable statement, for example, is instead of what I said in the first quote I quoted of you, I said "Well, the whale population has been on the decline since the 1920's!"
The stupid it burns. You have no fucking clue what he was saying nor what i was agreeing with.
Ok...whatever man. I know exactly what he is saying. He's tired of people referencing person's sexuality, race, gender when critically analyzing a game. It may not be a big deal to you or him but that doesn't mean its not to other people. That's fine if you want to believe that, its your opinion. That doesn't mean you are right about it not happening. You can't tell people something they believe isn't offensive just because it isn't to you. People's perceptions are always going to have an effect on how they view something. He wants people to focus on games and ignore it. Good luck with arguments though when your only recourse is dismissal or name calling.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@Aljosa23 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@leif3141: In other words....everyone has to agree with you. Games have no need to force issues that are not necessary to the story. Period.
It's not really about forcing issues but more about being ignorant to depictions of characters that it starts to fall into stereotypes. No one is arguing for developers to purposely put in politics or social issues into games but rather be more sensitive with what they are already depicting. That can only mean positive things to the quality of the characters so I can't fathom why anyone would be against it.
That's fine. But I never engaged in that discussion. So for him to argue with me about it is ludicrous. At the end of the day people aren't forced to buy games they don't like. And most games at least allow for people to create characters or select from a list. If a game has a specific story then yes......some demographics will not be included...but that is what the vision is and to want devs to create a world for you (general) is taking away their right to tell the story they want.
As I stated initially in one of these threads...not sure which....threats, harassment, and publishing personal information are going too far...and should be prosecuted.
Let's look at the statement in question -
"What ever happened to gaming just being gaming? Why does a persons sexuality, race or gender have to be wrapped up in it? Why hasn't a tall, blonde, German been the main character of a Grand Theft Auto game? I'm going to stomp my feet and throw a fit now. ......lol
Why cant we all just shut the **** up and play games?"
You agreed with this statement. Clearly gender, race, sexuality had already BEEN brought up, BY THE PREVIOUS USER who made the statement (and everyone else in the thread) but the quote was the complete dismissal of it. That is still referencing it. Even the absence of acknowledgement of the argument still means you are in the discussion. So then I point out that I don't agree with the dismissal and give an example why I think this attitude is wrong to have, and the fact the issue is not as simple as you claim it, and you stated that it wasn't applicable to the situation. Do you know what applicable even means? That's where the argument started. I never said you must agree with everything I said regarding video games and whether or not characters are portraying annoyingly at times, but my main point is you seem to think that even though someone is directly referencing something you and everyone else in the thread is being discussed, its somehow not applicable. A non-applicable statement, for example, is instead of what I said in the first quote I quoted of you, I said "Well, the whale population has been on the decline since the 1920's!"
@MBirdy88 said:
Ignoring the first paragraphic, simple because its spouting the obvious... everything ahsa theme/justification/very basic story.... but its not what keeps most of these players.
Sorry but how does a mute button ever fail? it doesn't.
Cancerous because another form of gaming is more popular than what you personally want? and stop with the art excuse... while gaming is made up of different forms of art and can be classified as art in its own right, they are also consumer products... and GAMES... your traditional definition of Art does not cut it for this form of entertainment... one that pretty much covers/requires most other art forms rolled into one.... but then factor in competition and rules of interactivity....
I mean, god forbid that playing games with other people all around the world instead of following a linear script that never holds up to books/movies i such a bad thing... I mean a game should focus on hand holding you through a story.... not provide depthful game mechanics in a group setting that have endless replayablity.. a feeling of improvement, comeptition and social benefits.... instead lets face that terrible A.I in most single player games until we run out of cutscenes... because they managed to shove a half-decent story in there and make it pretty.
You make a statement that says games don't have to focus on storylines, yet later you acknowledge its common sense that all games have them. Nice.
Some games allow you to type messages :). Others allow you to message people.
Well first off, I'd surmise its more popular because the games are being marketed at people who have a lot of time to play video games (people in school, youth, etc). The younger generally don't care as much for storylines (not always). I'd say its becoming apparent that there are many people exactly like me, which is why the indie market has exploded as of late. We have less time to focus on games than those that don't. Also, way to trivialize the declaration that video games are an art form, you know, the declaration that kept it open for the government to NOT censor the very games we are discussing. It's like using the veil of protection of considering it an art form, than absolving yourself of the title because you want to act like its not important.
I've played plenty of games that rival movie/book scripts. It's all in the eye of the beholder is it not? Your opinion of their storylines doesn't make it so. I agree that multiplayer can extend the life cycle of a game - but to tell you the truth, I'm not really too interested in that. I acknowledge that is my personal opinion and you obviously have yours about multiplayer. I even stated it was in reference to it being cancerous, it was my personal opinion, and knew most wouldn't agree with me. If others like multiplayer - that's fine. I don't hate people for it. I really like games involving a group of friends in the same room, and do that at times.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@leif3141 said:
@LJS9502_basic said:
@leif3141: And yet the posts you quoted said something entirely different. Which means if you want to engage in discussion on what was quoted....you do just that. Period.
The post quoted was dismissing that sexism and equality shouldn't be an issue considered. It also just said everyone needs to shut up about it. You quoted that statement with agreement. This entire thread has been that argument precisely, with one side saying it doesn't matter much and the other side saying it does. I merely added my opinion and yet, somehow, I don't know what's being argued about, even though it was a direct counterargument to yours and his statement. Maybe that makes sense to you that its not related, but that doesn't mean its not. I think you are just upset someone disagreed with you.
Did you understand his post? No apparently not. It doesn't have to be an issue in games. That was the point. But you'd rather say hey look at me I'm PC guys then realize some people don't want political agendas in games....they just want to play a good game.
I don't have any problems with people playing good games. I do have an issue with people just being blind to a subject. That's what the post refers to - the "I don't care/understand all the hoopla about what is being discussed, I'd rather just dismiss it and act like nothing is being done wrong". Do I think sometimes people find problems with PCness in games and it gets overblown? Yes at times I do. I don't think its overblown to point out SOME (note, not all) games cater to a mentality of stupidity in this aspect, and don't think its wrong to point out that A) It is offensive to some people B) It dumbs down people to effect of the issue and C) it typically doesn't add much to the game other than shock value. I compare this in the same aspect that reality TV/people obsessed with celebrity gossip/etc is dumbing our society down - and well, eventually that has an impact on lots of people
@MBirdy88 said:
@leif3141 said:
@CreasianDevaili said:
@leif3141 said:
The problem with the recent trend of feminism in gaming? While they have some valid points about what they are talking about, its the attitude/way its presented that's too militant for most people. And its more of an overall critique of society that just happens to be the ire of video games at the moment. And they really don't have much of a solution, other than trying to change the minds of the young males they are targeting. Want to be successful? Encourage parents of these suburban kids to not BUY these games for them. Don't let them play online in matches, were this sort of stupid behavior is learned. Some games just have mature content that adds to the story. Other games just have mature content just for the sake of having it. I won't be buying the latter games for my children because I personally find them mind numbing. If they want to buy them when they reach adulthood, that's their prerogative.
I think you've missed the point, but given the other side representation, that's a given.
It's never been the podium that creates the discrimination/idealism/harassment. All it does is allow someone who stand up there and act the way that they truly wish to. That guy or gal isn't being an ass or jerk because they hide being anon online they just let you see it because they think there is nothing you can do to them in retaliation. All of the sexism and such sells. It's a supply to a very apparent demand. Big name companies will play the perception game but indie ones, ironic to the context of the latest drama fest, won't be nearly as restricted and hell might highly benefit from such a thing.
You can try and teach morals but you can't morality. The subtle difference is that you may think that John's demeanor means that he would never hurt a defenseless animal but when no one can hold him to it he might kill a kitten and enjoy it. Morals will keep a kid from calling some random lady a **** around others on the street but morality would keep them from doing it online behind the anon wall.
So removing a podium does nothing, absolutely nothing, against the problem. All it does is shift it to the next one.
Also...I'd say that the mmorpg environment, no matter the theme of mature or "for everyone", is far more toxic and apparent of social issues than any call of duty or grand theft auto game.
I agree about the mmorpg environment as well. Online gaming, in my PERSONAL opinion, is pretty much a cancer on the gaming industry. I know most would disagree. It shifts the focus away from storylines, and into whatever you want to call online gaming.
/facepalm. (see what I did there?... probably not...)
You blame the anonymity of the internet on online gaming.... and label it the cancer of the industry? sorry, since when has a GAME had to focus on story lines? whats the definition of a game? have you noticed most kids/teens playing sports are just as potty mouthed and disrespectful... and unforgiving to those that are not good? welcome to youth in competitive enviroments.
Don't blame the online games.... its certain people and their anon as you have both discuss already.... but how the hell can you label multiplayer gaming over the internet cancerous? you sound ridiculous... I've met many good people playing these games... just because you've overhead idiots spouting crap doesn't change any of that... and like EVERY ONLINE GAME EVER has ways to mute/silence the people that do. and they can get punished.
Ok, so first off take a game that is a current video game on a gaming console or previous one that isn't a game meant to NOT have a storyline (sports, simple puzzle games, etc) and tell me one that doesn't have some sort of storyline. Games are nowadays considered an art form, it kinda comes with the territory. Even if the storyline is somewhat negligible or bad, it generally still has one. What I should have said is that online gaming has generally caused developers to not place much importance on the storyline, and focus mostly on the online aspect of a video game. Oh and by the way - I've been to plenty of sports games in my time involving youth - while you generally have a couple of bad apples, most of the time its relatively harmless activity. Much less than online gaming sessions that I've been involved with. Its one thing if a kid has a "potty mouth" as you say, its another entirely for a person to spew bitterly hostile or belligerent remarks at everything.
I didn't say everyone who plays online is a bad person. I've done it myself with certain games. It just facilitates a passive acceptance of trolling no where else in society generally does. Yea you say there are safeguards for that - they don't always work tho, do they? I just meant its cancerous because of the destruction of single player storylines, where plenty of developers have openly admitted they don't really care about anymore cause that's not where the money is.
@Aljosa23 said:
@plageus900 said:
What ever happened to gaming just being gaming? Why does a persons sexuality, race or gender have to be wrapped up in it? Why hasn't a tall, blonde, German been the main character of a Grand Theft Auto game? I'm going to stomp my feet and throw a fit now. ......lol
Why cant we all just shut the **** up and play games?
Because you have the crowd who tout games as art in which case it's perfectly reasonable for people to want them to live up to it by not including stereotypes and offensive characters, having better stories, and appealing to wider demographics as opposed to just males 18-35. I think it's dumb to say stuff like "they're just games" but then still act like they are an art form - it can't be both way. I'm speaking for myself but I want games with better stories and characterization but that's not going to happen unless the quality of the writing in games increases.
Where I differ with the "social justice warrior" crowd is that they don't really care about games getting better (do they even play games?) they just want to spread political agendas. I'm perfectly OK with films having racism, xenophobia, misogynism... if it fits the world. Look at something like The Godfather, there are two females that speak in the entire film and one spends most of her time getting beat up and the other treated like shit. But it's still an incredible film because it deals with these things in complex ways as opposed to games which just shoehorn themes just to have them.
Better watch out. I am currently arguing with someone who says that opinion has nothing to do with what's being discussed.
@LJS9502_basic said:
@leif3141: And yet the posts you quoted said something entirely different. Which means if you want to engage in discussion on what was quoted....you do just that. Period.
The post quoted was dismissing that sexism and equality shouldn't be an issue considered. It also just said everyone needs to shut up about it. You quoted that statement with agreement. This entire thread has been that argument precisely, with one side saying it doesn't matter much and the other side saying it does. I merely added my opinion and yet, somehow, I don't know what's being argued about, even though it was a direct counterargument to yours and his statement. Maybe that makes sense to you that its not related, but that doesn't mean its not. I think you are just upset someone disagreed with you.
Log in to comment