Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 26 to 44 of 44

  1. Post
    #26
    ChrisB wrote:
    edit: I enjoyed Anita's review btw. People need to realize that the intended audience, and the stance of the reviewer need to be taken in to consideration. Not every review is intended for the same audience. This sort of diversity should be embraced. Find reviewers that share your views, and like the same games you do. Reviewer selection is important. If you do not like Anita's views, don't read/watch her reviews unless you are actually interested in seeing a feminist opinion on a game. You are not her audience, and for that reason your opinion on her opinion is not all that relevant to anyone other than yourself.
    I think it's good getting different perspective's from different reviewers (well for some that is) I have to admit tho I had never watched any of her stuff before until this but I have to say I enjoyed it aswell I should check out other reviews from her in the future.

  2. Post
    #27
    Matt M wrote:
    You're right, that is an utterly absurd argument, because you just compared the existence of black people with purple eight-legged aliens.
    No I ****ing didn't and that really angers me you would accuse me of such a thing.

    I made an analogy not a simile and I don't doubt you are smart enough to know the damn difference. I was saying something historically inaccurate is like something historically inaccurate.

    Matt M wrote:
    If it's trying to set a tone of realism, explain how falling hundreds of feet into a haystack means you walk away unharmed. Explain the grappling hook. Hell, explain how it is we are able to climb like a spider and never tire or slip? How is it we can hide from an alerted guard for 30 seconds and have him or her just assume we were a figment of their imagination? Who in history invented our blade launcher? Pretty sure those weren't around.

    In other words: this game is not about realism and never has been. Are you honestly telling me that these things are realistic, but that the thing that would completely remove you from the experience is the appearance of a few black people? Dude.
    Nope I'm not saying that at all. Clearly your impressions of things being based on historical events means all bets are off if you introduce one thing that is historically inaccurate.

    I take it you defend the use of white people for other races in films like Exodus, because the movie isn't EXACTLY how the events took place that must mean that all bets are off based on facts like were socially other races would be found or the amount of a certain race would be located in a geographic location. Because its the same ****ing argument.

    Personally I am a fan of period pieces being realistic about how races were treated around those times as I think we should be reminded about humanities atrocities, and it being "based" or "inspired" by true events shouldn't be a way for people to sidestep serious shit.

    But my comment was specifically about that fact that its fair to criticize the use of gender and racial diversity inaccurately to cover up the horrible way things were. And saying that a couple of things being slightly different shouldn't be an easy out. Which is why I personally hated Exodus and couldn't watch it, because it being a fictional story (or believed by some) for me doesn't excuse the white casting and that removed me from the experience.

    Matt M wrote:
    Link?
    https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/613152761710903296

  3. Post
    #28
    ChrisB wrote:
    Diversity for diversities sake is something I take issue with as well. As everyone knows I am liberal, feminist, LGBT+ supporter, progressive person, and a focal opponent of any bigotry in gaming, and even I find this a little hard to swallow. Sure its fictionalized, but black people in London were very few and far between. They were circus oddities, slaves, or curio-servants. They were not part of the social landscape, and shoehorning them in feels disingenuous to me. I would prefer something actually highlighting the appalling way that ethnic minorities were treated at the time as far more appropriate as both a narrative hook, actually addressing racism, and an explanation of why they are not seen in game.

    However if your setting is completely (or mostly) fictional then excluding diversity is something I would find unacceptable. I've said it many many times: Context. It's important.

    edit: I enjoyed Anita's review btw. People need to realize that the intended audience, and the stance of the reviewer need to be taken in to consideration. Not every review is intended for the same audience. This sort of diversity should be embraced. Find reviewers that share your views, and like the same games you do. Reviewer selection is important. If you do not like Anita's views, don't read/watch her reviews unless you are actually interested in seeing a feminist opinion on a game. You are not her audience, and for that reason your opinion on her opinion is not all that relevant to anyone other than yourself.
    Agree with everything except the last line.

    She is clearly not the target audience for some of the things she doesn't like but she criticizes it. She has the right to criticize that content, and other have the right to criticize her content for the same fundamental reason.

  4. Post
    #29
    Last line is fine. Relevance does not mean you're not able or allowed to express it. Perhaps I should rephrase "for that reason your opinion on her opinion my not be all that relevant to anyone other than yourself".
    Expressing an opinion does not in of itself make it relevant.

  5. Post
    #30
    Matt M wrote:
    And GTA IV was widely criticised for that! In fact, the term "ludo-narrative dissonance" was coined by Clint Hocking because of that aspect of that game.
    Matt M wrote:
    Again, tell me how you remain immersed in your realistic game when you can fall hundreds of feet into a haystack and walk away unharmed, grappling hook up the side of buildings, climb like a spider and never tire or slip, hide from an alerted guard for 30 seconds and have him or her just assume we were a figment of their imagination, and fire blades accurately from an arm launcher? My argument is that the inclusion of some black people is far less of an affront to realism than any of this stuff.
    i used gta iv as a mere example. u could say the same about gta v or call of duty, etc. my point is that story/setting and gameplay can coexist but can also be treated as separate elements at the same time.

    yes, a lot of games struggle to maintain the realism, tone and cohesiveness. even la noire struggles with this. i bet u kill over 200 people over the course of the game. point and click gameplay with simple puzzle solving would not have been enough to satisfy all lot of the gamers and hence the necessity of including some "padding" in a way of shooting. however that's no excuse to go all out and start adjusting realism of the story the game tries to tell and world in which the game is set in. both of which are good btw.

    suspension of disbelief works when it comes to that sort of gameplay but it hardly works when it comes to reinvented victorian london that is if the game want u to think you're in victorian london. the story also cannot be very believable because, as i said before, changing social reality of the time completely ignores everything that it brings with it ie the attitudes of the people, the norms of the period, etc.

    Matt M wrote:
    It seems like regardless of how well they were written, you wouldn't like their inclusion. Again, I'm yet to read a review where it is said the inclusion is forced. And you'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.

    Also: so if they were well written it would be fine?
    you are correct but good writing at least would be nice

  6. Post
    #31
    I get where drunk_monk is coming from; glossing over the horrible things human beings have historically done (and still do) in the interests of modern politically correct diversity.

    How about a movie set in WWII-era Germany, where all the Nazi's were black and transgender, and the holocaust didn't happen?

  7. Post
    #32
    EDIT: Poorly worded post that's not worth correcting.

  8. Post
    #33

  9. Post
    #34
    seanhinton wrote:
    Gender-integrated MMA/Boxing/Rugby etc are surely soon to follow.
    Love this idea. Could even do mixed classes, like have a heavyweight go up against a featherweight, and just smash the living shit out of them. Like Jonah Lomu Rugby back in the day, where you could have a whole team on Jonahs!

  10. Post
    #35
    seanhinton wrote:
    She goes on to say in another tweet


    Gender-integrated MMA/Boxing/Rugby etc are surely soon to follow.
    Which sounds terrible to me in a world where feminists are complaining about men on women violence, to make it professional. *shrug* different opinions I guess.

  11. Post
    #36
    drunk_monk wrote:
    Which sounds terrible to me in a world where feminists are complaining about men on women violence, to make it professional. *shrug* different opinions I guess.
    Uhhh, the sport wouldn't be husband/boyfriend vs scared partner, it'd still follow the rules, weight regulations etc of real sports and have willing participants...

  12. Post
    #37
    seanhinton wrote:
    Gender-integrated MMA/Boxing/Rugby etc are surely soon to follow.
    I'm reminded of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RY3oRVzjSIg

  13. Post
    #38
    Matt M wrote:
    It does, but I donít see why thatís a negative. All reviews are checklists to some extent - itís just that her criteria differ from the norm. You may not think her criteria are valid (for reasons you are welcome to explain to me, or not), but judging from the view count on the video, many people do.
    While I'm not particularly fussed about AC games, I am interested in the dialogue this opened up.

    Two things you said, Matt, that I'd like to question. The above quote... I've gotta know, is that really your opinion, did you think it through?

    You're saying that the view count on her video is a good indication of the amount of people who agree with her view? That doesn't sound right. Part of being informed means looking at the other side of the argument. By the logic stated in the quote, any debater who actually listens to his opponent would be... agreeing with his opponent? The ONLY thing you can tell from the number of views is... the number of views. Drawing conclusions about how many people did or did not agree with the video from the view count is, quite simply, ludicrous.

    If we do in fact assume that everyone - or even a large percentage that we pull from our asses - who watched the video agrees, you're implying that the status quo is such that one shouldn't be informing themselves about the opinions of people they disagree with. How then are we supposed to talk about this stuff? You claim to want dialogue about it, to get people talking and expressing themselves. But... you don't think they should be listening to what anyone else says? And if they do listen, it means they agree?

    As I said, that's ludicrous.

    The other issue I have with what you are saying is that you are saying that if a game strays into fudging physics (IE: Falling 10+ stories into a leaf pile and surviving) for game play reasons, then it stands to reason that it MUST be acceptable to break setting completely and change the context of everything to conform to modern social norms.

    Here is the thing, though. It doesn't. The game is set in a certain period. It tries to be historically accurate as possible without compromising the story they intend to tell. That has been the stated goal of Ubisoft since the beginning of AC. They want to immerse the player in these different time periods.

    That immersion is instantly broken - not by game play mechanics - by being entirely and completely historically inaccurate. Had they set the game in a society/time where transgender was casually treated, historically, then there would be no cause to argue against it being there. But it wasn't. It was set during Victorian times. When being gay was actually a prison sentence if you were found out, if you were lucky. Transgender was a circus side-show that was looked upon with disgust. Mocked, ridiculed. VERY ****ING RARE.

    To have Ubisoft then turn around and make an AC game (not just any game, an AC game specifically - remember, context) where they are being completely and utterly historically inaccurate... it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense in the same game series, it doesn't make sense in the timeline, it doesn't make sense from a story perspective.

    If you think it does, you're going to have to explain how.

    If they had shoved the story into the future, some cyberpunk future - or even kept up with the modern/near-future time and set the game there - it would make sense to have transgender characters running around. It would make sense.

    And they could find some other bullshit reason to keep the limitless energy, the perfect, tireless climbing, the no fall damage loophole, etc. in the game for game play reasons.

    That has nothing to do with inserting modern morality into a game specifically set in the past in what is supposed to be the real time-line, only secret.

  14. Post
    #39
    seanhinton wrote:
    She goes on to say in another tweet


    Gender-integrated MMA/Boxing/Rugby etc are surely soon to follow.
    To be fair, despite the Anita picture I think the FemFreq twitter account is mostly the writer/producer Jonathan McIntosh, who does seem to be actually quite stupid - and I usually try to see the best in people...

  15. Post
    #40
    Sorry to necro this thread. Been thinking about it some, and it has been bothering me.

    I guess I wanted to clarify my stance, as I got emotional replying to Growee and sounded like something of a lunatic. Sorry about that. I'm not actually sure what I was advocating for. Thanks for your reply Nerin.

    I think that if a studio wants to keep things historically accurate as far as diversity goes that's fine, and I concede despite its gameplay-related stuff, that Assassin's Creed is generally trying to do this.

    As for gender-integrated MMA or boxing, god I hope not. Men are better built for fighting. It would be a bloodbath, and there's no way I'd be keen to watch women getting their asses kicked by men.

  16. Post
    #41
    Matt M wrote:
    and there's no way I'd be keen to watch women getting their asses kicked by men.
    If we check your browser history will that statement still hold true Matt?
    Spoiler:

  17. Post
    #42
    Was the joke what you said to Matt or what you said to me?

    Because, honestly? I thought both were funny. (Though, I found the spoiler more funny and the line to Matt more cheesy than funny)

    But then I've been told on these very forums that I have no sense of humor.

    Matt: Yeah, I figured it was something like that. It just didn't make sense. Don't worry though, it likely sounded fine in your head when you were typing it all out. It happens to me too.

  18. Post
    #43
    seanhinton wrote:
    If we check your browser history will that statement still hold true Matt?
    Spoiler:
    ....no comment

  19. Post
    #44
    I guess I don't mind when it's in a light/comedic (or a controlled environment) type approach as Andy Kauffman when he did that whole wrestling women it wasn't meant to be taken serious yet alot of people got offended by it because they thought he was serious. I however would take offense when it becomes alot more physical.