While it would have been nice for OP to mention this, honestly dude, fuck off. People can decide for themselves if they want to install Epic for a free title without this kind of toxic, elitist discourse.
Glide
joined 2 years ago
Okay, like, I can like an aging Sony dad AND think all this pearl-clutching and hand wringing about "wokism ruining games" just because Ciri could actually arm wrestle me and drink me under a table is bonkers. It's not Ciri's fault that she can achieve a level of badass that these chuds can only imagine.
If I found myself in Florida, I'd pull out before I finish too.
This Fanta coloured asshole is going to openly flirt with the idea of invading Canada to save us from ourselves, I guaran-fucking-tee it.
"The act must be committed with the intent to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."
I have no issue with the state correctly identifying this act as terrorism. I take great issue with the fact that this act is being defined as terrorism, while using a definition that clearly defines many things that get a pass as terrorism. Remember last Trump presidency, when his white house published an old-school violent videogames scare video to garner support for his policies while distracting from discussion on gun laws? An act committed with the intent to coerce a civilian population is terrorism.
And let's be real, I picked a low-stakes, innoculous example just to make a point: the state does a LOT to terrorize it's citizens. But when they do it, it's "law and order." When Luigi fights back in self defense? "Terrorism".
And originally created by a university design team with a female design lead, at that.
Even as Portal 2 adds male characters, one is greedy and responsible for all the conflict in the franchise, acting as something of a caricature for masculine stereotypes, and the other's only defining trait is that he's an easily corrupted idiot.
Portal is perhaps the best example of, and should be held up as the golden standard of, feminism in gaming.
I think it has less to do with gender politics and more to do with delivery, though.
The writing was just better. They make Joel to be a complicated, sympathetic character, and create a situation in which, even as Joel/the player murders relative innocents, you know he is doing a bad thing from a complicated and genuine love. Then, they take that character and reduce all his love to "he did a bad" and shoot him, make you chase his killer for half a game, and try to make you sympathize with his killer after the fact? And it's all tied together through this tired, "cycle of violence" trope that another major post-apolcolyptic zombie survival media has already bastardized and beaten to death.
The "fans" who defend Joel as the hero are insane, on that point I can't agree more. But I think the dislike of Abby and the love of Joel is deeper than "guy good, girl bad." I've seen far fewer complaints (though not zero complaints) about playing the notably more "woke" surrogate lesbian daughter than about playing as Abby.
As an aside, I've been thinking recently about how the game would feel if you spend the first half of the game as Abby, chasing her father's killer, only to have the rug pull later that the killer is Joel. Then, you spend the second half playing as Ellie, dealing with the consequences, while the player is trying to reconcile what just happened. Though it prob would have been harder to sell a game that doesn't open with Eillie and Joel.
No. They're whining about Witcher 4 using Ciri as a protagonist because they think she was made ugly.
Attractive women designed solely to be the object of male affection are allowed to be protagonists. When a woman stands on their own as a unique complex individual, they take issue.
Man, calling this a snub is a misnomer to begin with.
One winner and five nominee's. Let's not downplay being in the top 6 nominations for "best game of the year" as "losing." It's an incredible achievement no matter how you look at it.
What bugs me though is the idea that the root cause is members of a group agreeing too much.
I just think you have this wrong. The root issue isn't the group agreeing too much, and I don't really think the collective opinion is that it is. The root issue is the belief that your constructed space of similiar world views is representative of truth, rather than bias.
People assume, since everyone in their systematically built social media space agrees, that their opinion or action is widespread and therefore acceptable. When someone is told their views are damaging, unrealistic and/or represent a tiny minority, it is easy for their ego to refute this interally: "everyone online agrees." The pre-cherry picked answers in the echo chamber then feeds into the fallacy of majority, the ego feels justified in rejecting the statements contrary to their opinion and world view, and no discussion is had. The conversation immediately stops (even if the talking continues) and no benefit is drawn from engaging with each others world views.
This is not the "same viewpoint Luigi holds." The Canadian and British examples are grossly exaggerated to the point of being a bad faith argument, which leads me to suspect the US one might be as well.
Lying about the problem doesn't aid the cause; it harms it.