GreyBeard Comments

Page 1 of 21

  • We cannot let this become gaming culture

  • GreyBeard 18/10/2014


    The commonality between the recent targets of threats (on both sides) is that they are all very active participants in social media/internet culture.

    This is far more significant than the link with gaming; especially when so many of the people involved were only fringe players prior to their involvement with the controversy.
    Reply +3
  • GreyBeard 17/10/2014


    You're right this is totally a political issue, which is why its never going to end with a decisive victory for one side or the other.

    People are not going to abandon their politics because of the excesses of a handful of extremists. In fact the more intense the "battle" the more hardened and dogmatic many people are going to become.

    The truly sad part of this is the realization that despite many people in gaming media seeming very keen on the idea of interjecting political discourse into gaming culture. They seem utterly unprepared for dealing with people who's politics are of the wrong persuasion (in their view).

    Gamergate is going to run and run so long as its opponents argue in the language and jargon of the American Left. Its as simple as that.
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 17/10/2014

    Its extremely disingenuous to suggest the Gamergate movement is the root of all evil in gaming culture. What about Anonymous and their hacking exploits and DDOS attacks? What about Lizardsquad getting John Smedley's flight redirected with a veiled bomb-threat? What about SWATing? What about the page put up by the CoD developer/community guy showing the hideous threats he received for the contents of balance patches?

    Where were the pleas for sanity from the gaming press when all this other stuff was going on?

    Social media as a vector for terroristic threats is the REAL ISSUE here, and it was around a long time before Gamergate.
    Reply +10
  • E3 organiser and trade group ESA speaks out against GamerGate

  • GreyBeard 16/10/2014


    No reported version of that story specifically cites GG in that quote, and the quote, not the question that elicited it, is the thing that matters.

    Not that it actually impacts the main thrust of my post: that there have been far more concrete and impactful threats issued to other targets by parties other than the nebulous collective known as #Gamergate in just the last 6 months.

    Full disclosure: I don't even own a Twitter account, and never visit let alone frequently post on Reddit or 4chan. I have no affiliation with nor sympathy for either side in this scuffle, I find both parties and their rhetoric equally worthless.
    Reply +1
  • GreyBeard 16/10/2014

    So, anyone want to remind me again why bringing politics into videogame discussion was/is such a brilliant idea?

    This whole controversy is so mired in partisan political rhetoric at this point, it might as well be renamed Red vs Blue.

    Seems to me that for all the talk of progression and inclusiveness what in fact we've gotten from it is the precise opposite.
    Reply +5
  • GreyBeard 16/10/2014

    What exactly did the ESA say? Oh yeah, that personal attacks and threats are wrong but didn't actually specify who the perpetrators are.

    And that matters because GG does not have a monopoly on internet douchebaggery. It could and should be seen as equally applicable to SWATers, DDOS'ers, hackers like Lizard Squad issuing bomb threats that get flights diverted, and so on. There is no shortage of despicable behaviour to call out from recent months.
    Reply +1
  • Performance Analysis: The Evil Within

  • GreyBeard 15/10/2014

    The first couple of paragraphs which show a complete lack of understanding about how aspect-ratio and framing a scene interact, is one of the most painfully embarrassing things I've ever read.

    "On the PC side, there is a console command that enables players to remove the bars but, at the time of writing, this only serves to crop the left and right of the screen producing an even more zoomed-in image."

    What in the name of all that is holy did you expect? The bars aren't overlaid, they are the boundaries of the rendered image!

    A thousand /facepalms don't do this justice.
    Reply +1
  • Anita Sarkeesian cancels university speech following school shooting threat

  • GreyBeard 15/10/2014


    Nope. The only way its going to die is if the media both professional and community-based stops covering it.

    The actual "industry", as in the big publishers and developers silence throughout this is very telling. They see it as a lurid sideshow that benefits noone except those who can successfully monetize the in-fighting.

    Nothing is going to change, except for a lot of ill-feeling thats going to hang around for many years to come.
    Reply +2
  • GreyBeard 15/10/2014


    "Speaking out" against the anonymous collective of the internet... that's sure to go well and have a real positive impact!

    The internet is a thorny issue for law enforcement to handle, let alone an industry that simply exists to sell entertainment and make money from it.

    Seriously, whichever side of this ludicrous farrago called Gamergate you stand, how do you think this is going to end?

    Are all the SJW's going to have a change of heart and disappear? Are the MRA's and #GG'ers going to realize that they are the "bad guys" and just stop.

    Its going to go on, and on, FOREVER because on the internet talk is cheap, and its easy to be dickish when you're sat alone at a keyboard and can aim all your hate and bile at an anonymous "other".

    People need to grow the fuck up.
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 15/10/2014

    Oh dear, since when was it the games industry's role to police the internet?

    Idiots making (in all likelihood, empty) threats against people to gain attention is an issue for social media providers to deal with.

    The only way that gaming is in any way responsible for any of this lies squarely at the feet of the gaming media, who by continuing to prominently cover this foolishness, are rewarding the perpetrators with the attention and notoriety they seek, and encouraging the next fuckwit to copy the approach.

    There are very good reasons why groups like the FBI discourage and attempt to minimize coverage of events like school shootings.
    Reply -5
  • You can push The Evil Within beyond 30fps on PC

  • GreyBeard 11/10/2014


    Check the RRP's. PS4/XBone titles are in fact higher than PS3/360.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 11/10/2014


    Yeah, yeah, yeah... its ALWAYS the other guy's problem.

    The reality is that PC as an OPEN platform simply isn't regulated in terms of standardization of software feature-set and hardware compliance the way it is on a closed system like a console.

    As a direct consequence of this YOU CANNOT EXPECT UNIFORMITY OF FEATURES. Its all at the developers discretion, and that cuts both ways.

    But again, as usual, you want the upsides of this situation but cannot countenance the negatives. And judging by the way you dodged my question, you certainly don't want to pony up the cash to make up the difference.

    The recent release of FFXIII on Steam is a classic example of this. Yes, its a straight port of the console version and as such requires a community sourced patch to push its res above 720p. But its got a list price of $16!

    What on earth would compel to believe that you deserve more features than the buyers of the console version when the title is being sold at such a reduced price compared to what they paid?

    Its almost like you believe as a PC gamer the laws of economics simply don't apply to you in the way they apply to the rest of gaming!
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 10/10/2014


    The point is, you expect (more accurately, demand) additional features, as standard, at no additional cost.

    You call developers lazy, yet you're the one throwing a tantrum because you -as a PC owner- are being offered the EXACT same feature set as console owners.

    As I wrote before, would you be willing to pay a premium, say 5, on top for those features in order to pay for the additional time spent coding and QA-ing them?

    Because if not, I challenge you to explain to me WHY your chosen corner of the market deserves the special snowflake treatment.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 10/10/2014


    If they provide options, its THEIR choice.

    If they elect NOT to provide options, once again, its THEIR choice.

    The problem is when people childishly demand it to be a certain way, and rubbish the way it is, not because that is actually at fault, but PURELY to bolster their argument and abusing everyone else in the process.

    Its a classic case of spoilt brattishness. "We're PC gamers, we demand better", when the reality is that you're just getting console hand-me-downs typically at a reduced price.

    Here's the real fucking rub: would you accept paying a premium over console prices for the added bells and whistles only available on PC?


    My God, if that ever happened the sky would fall in!
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 10/10/2014


    I don't care how you spend your money, I just dislike the attitude that a few extra pixels/fps makes a version of a game "definitive". This applies to build differences between console platform and PC versions alike.

    Its rude and ignorant. Especially when it turns into shit like this thread. i.e. a developer fails (or is presumed to fail) to include the desired e-peen showcasing features, and gets flak for it.
    Reply -1
  • GreyBeard 10/10/2014


    First thing, in terms of hours spent actually playing games, I could easily classify myself as a PC gamer. I'm most definitely not a console purist.

    Don't assume that just because I've long since grown past the juvenile "arms race phase" of spending silly money on annual GPU upgrades for marginal gains, that I dislike PC games or am oblivious to their many strong points.

    My issue is solely with the idiotic pronouncements of some -not all- self-identifying "PC-gamers".

    The whole "PC master race" meme exists, and has stuck around for a reason. And its not a complimentary one. :D

    PS. The reason why reissues are often called "definitive" or whatever is rather obvious. Its called marketing!

    Its the same principle that keeps people buying new GPU's and other add-ons for the entire duration of a console cycle despite the fact that due to their origins most titles will have been built to the same target spec for the entire duration!

    You don't actually need those features, but they have to find a way to sell you product.

    Has it not occurred to you that there are significant vested interests in encouraging the illusion that these marginal gains are actually more impactful than they are?
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 09/10/2014


    "Could you go back and watch your favourite movie on VHS and an old telly once you've seen it on bluray and a HD TV?"

    Yes, easily. However I'd be watching for the content, not just the quality of the medium - and my choice would largely be dictated by convenience.

    The point is -and this analogy actually exaggerates the material difference- telling people that a DVD copy is unwatchable and that Blu-Ray is the only way to enjoy x movie, should not be allowed to stand unchallenged.

    Essentially this topic is people saying that a plain console port is unacceptable on PC. That the makers vision and intentions are less relevant to them than the desire to buff their e-peen by showing off about how many pixels their beefy new gpu can push.

    To which end all kinds of transparently fallacious arguments are trotted out, in order to justify that egotism.

    More pixels, more framerate are a positive no doubt. But, its a minor boon in the face of far larger and more impactful concerns about how entertaining the title is as a game.

    The bottom line is it doesn't really matter what resolution a game runs at or its framerate, because a game is either good to play at its default intended specification, or it isn't.

    That base spec is the definitive one, not what your rig can or cannot do.
    Reply -2
  • GreyBeard 09/10/2014


    Listen pal, I've been playing games since the 1970s, and been a professional developer since the 1980's. I've seen this medium grow and change in a myriad of ways from both outside and inside of the business.

    Throughout the entire history of gaming the hallmark of quality has been the ENTERTAINMENT value of the software.

    If you are having fun with something, you are having fun with it, irrespective of it being run on a top-end PC or a Vic-20.

    Graphics will inevitably be superceded by advancements in technology. You can spend thousands on the most bleeding-edge tech only for it to become sub entry-level a few years down the line.

    Chasing the "definitive" on a technical level is a fool's errand, the only thing that will win is TIME.

    On the other hand, if you start mentally erecting performance/presentation barriers below which you start deeming things "not fun" based on those factors alone, then the problem is ON YOU. Stop being so fucking stupid!

    You don't get to summarily throw everything that's gone before into the trashcan because your "standards" are too high. That's just childish and ignorant. Its shows utter disrespect for the form.

    A laughably common sentiment that I think perfectly illustrates this particular brand of stupidity is the "30fps is unplayable" thing.

    Arrant nonsense, firstly because it dismisses the hundreds of great games going back to the dawn of the form that ran at that frequency or lower, but also because as a criticism in its own right its transparently bogus. Unless of course you're a fucktard who has somehow divined that gaming uniquely is the only circumstance where being given MORE time to react to stimulus, actually makes it harder!

    Graphics whores have been around since the beginning of gaming. They sucked then, and they suck now. PC gamers often get it worse because they typically have forked out a huge premium to play the same games as the rest of the world at a marginally higher res and framerate, and as such desperately need to fend off that nagging sense of buyer's remorse!

    And yes, they are the same fucking games. Typically console games passed on as hand-me-downs because that part of the business gets the lion's share of development investment.
    Reply 0
  • GreyBeard 09/10/2014


    The final sentence of your post succinctly sums up why people who genuinely love games consider PC elitists literally to be the worst of the worst.

    Arrogant philistines who misguidedly believe that jacking up the visuals is the be-all and end-all of gaming.

    "Definitive!" My Arse.
    Reply -4
  • Dark Souls 2: Crown of the Ivory King review

  • GreyBeard 02/10/2014

    I really hate this notion of DS2 being the work of the "b" team, do people really think that its a just reward for a group who's done a really good job on a project is to keep them working on sequels to the same thing ad infinitum?

    This is why development staff move on and/or suffer burnout.
    Reply +2
  • iPhone 6 sold 10 million units in three days

  • GreyBeard 23/09/2014

    Its not having much impact whatsoever on how developers think because the smartphone, and specifically the iOS market has been huge for a long time now. The reality is that its just another SKU with slightly higher specs than before, further fragmenting the market and adding even more pressure to QA test across multiple devices.

    The funny part is that as the technology improves, so does the cost (in time, effort, and ultimately, money) of actually utilizing it. The end result being if you actually want to use that new power, you are in fact restricting your market to buyers of the latest iteration - which isn't really a great idea given that the entire appstore economic model is built on commodity sales through a multi-platform interface.

    In a nutshell, visibility on the appstore is still the paramount concern, closely followed by pricing. The technology is actually not all that important outside of the number of man-hours required to leverage it, and in any cases is a negative as part of opportunity cost.

    By the time developers start using the iPhone 6 to its best advantage, the iPhone 7 or later will be out, and the same mugs suckling on the Apple upgrade teat will end up paying another $1000 for the same old shit.
    Reply +1
  • Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain Snake and Quiet gameplay revealed

  • GreyBeard 18/09/2014


    Dude. Metal Gear *is* (as you put it) a series about crazy freakish looking people with mad powers and shit going on.

    And as for "unless you can come up with a decent, proper, actual contextual reason as to why shes in a bikini and thong. Maybe there is one, Id love to hear it."

    Here's a radical thought, why not wait until you have more information before rushing to judgement? Maybe there is a contextual reason, no doubt it'll hold up to about as much scrutiny as to why Mystique looks the way she does, or the way the Hulk's pants seem to be remarkably more elastic than the rest of his gear (i.e very little).

    "Context" or "Sexism" is not the issue. Its the pedantry that annoys me.
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 18/09/2014


    Quiet seems pretty mutant-y to me. I mean with the weird darkness around here eyes phasing in and out and stuff.

    Bottom line is that whether its a "mutant gene" or "nanomachines" its all make-believe anyway, so I don't see much difference at all.

    What I dug about it was seeing a super-powered mutant on the player's side, as opposed to on the antagonists - as is usual for a MGS title. That was far more intriguing to me than polygonal cleavage!
    Reply +3
  • GreyBeard 18/09/2014


    What annoys me is people who's only comment after seeing such an awesome passage of gameplay is to whinge about cosmetic details.

    Do you piss and moan through X-men because Mystique is a basically a nude woman with pasties and body-paint?
    Reply +2
  • Microsoft to buy Mojang for $2 billion - report

  • GreyBeard 10/09/2014

    I look at this as being less about xbox, than about MS entire OS/mobile/tablet strategy.

    Its an interesting move, and if it goes through I wonder how its going to affect other big players like Google, Amazon, and maybe even Apple's attitude to acquiring big IP in the long run.

    I can't see Sony being especially concerned, in fact I'd imagine they'd be relieved to see such a huge sum being utilized to secure a single IP/developer mainly associated with non-console platforms, rather than directly against PS4.
    Reply +2
  • GreyBeard 10/09/2014

    $2b is not "pocket change" to anyone. Its a very significant investment for any corporation even if they can easily afford to make it.

    Put it this way, it's a big bet. If it turns out a winner, great, but if it doesn't hard questions will get asked by shareholders as to why such a significant sum was expended on, relatively speaking, so little.
    Reply +2
  • Editor's blog: A brief note about "GamerGate"

  • GreyBeard 04/09/2014


    Yep. It's all just bullshit internet drama at its most lurid.

    What makes me chuckle is the apparent surprise of some media people that attempting to politicize gaming discussion wouldn't result in a complete shitstorm...

    The internet, volcanically overreacting over stuff? Who'd a thunk it!
    Reply +3
  • GreyBeard 04/09/2014


    The only "problem" with TLOU is the absence of female human antagonists (hunters) is a very notable omission in retrospect.

    This really sticks out given how it builds up Tess as being as cut-throat as Joel in the beginning.

    It's a clear double-standard which I'm fairly confident was employed simply to avoid controversy, although in the final analysis its actually rather sexist.

    Not that I consider it a big deal either way, its just an observation.
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014

    Last word is yours Guy.J.: (Verbatim)

    "What else would you expect to find in a stripclib" is indeed a moronic response that demonstrates a complete failure to understand the issue. Unfortunately that sort of thinking is very common. Your comparison with religious thinking is quite apt.
    "What makes you think God is real?"
    "Because it says so in the Bible."
    "What makes you think the Bible can be trusted?"
    "Because it's the word of God. DUH."
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Oh dear... I was afraid of that.

    And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with religious thinking or my lack of understanding "the issue".

    I simply believe its a matter of freedom of speech and expression. If I want to put a strip club in a game, and populate it accordingly I should be free to do so.

    If you don't like it, don't support it.

    Just don't act like it has no right to exist simply because you find it undesirable or distasteful.
    Reply +5
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014

    Hey, I'm still mystified by Guy.J's comment comparing the existentialism of God to that of strip clubs, was that brilliant satire or straight lunacy? Reply +1
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Thanks for the kind words, but having once argued Stu Campbell to a stalemate, this guy is bush-league in comparison!
    Reply +9
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    I'm through talking to you. You are either unable, or more likely, unwilling to see past your own projected prejudices and biases.

    You aren't worth the effort; Honestly I feel like I've thoroughly dismantled your argument and yet you still persist... repeating the same fallacies over and over ad nauseum.

    I can tell you think you are the "righteous one" in this discussion, but truthfully, you're not.

    You're just a lame-brained zealot who actually does more harm to the cause they support than any critic ever could. So please, keep talking :D

    You talk about progression, yet all you offer is repression. You talk about inclusiveness and yet all you argue for is the exclusion of scenarios you personally find distateful.

    So much for freedom of speech, eh?

    You are the worst sort of hypocrite, the "holier-than-thou" kind.
    Reply +12
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    No. I used the "she was asking for it" analogy to point out the fallacy of externally projecting intent and culpability, which is the crux of your argument.

    You are treating the fictional killing of a fictional stripper as being particularly egregious because of the character's appearance alone. And how the way that character was drawn "by a man for other men" -which is pure, baseless speculation especially given how so many talented game artists are female.

    The NPC's appearance is not an incitement to kill, unless you think that how someone dresses implicitly states willing victimhood. Which is an astonishingly sexist way to look at things, and is in no way borne out by exceptional treatment in the game's mechanics.

    Besides, what else would you expect to find in the back-rooms of a seedy nightclub? Knights in armour?

    As for your pitiful counter that:

    This Jack Thompson BS is just a pathetic attempt at the associate fallacy (Jack Thompson critcised games and he was wrong, you are criticising games therefore you are wrong)

    I never even considered Jack Thompson, I was think more along the lines of John Beyer, Mary Whitehouse and all the other "moral crusaders" who deign to impose their morality and world-view on other people.

    Fascist scum, one and all.
    Reply +8
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    I have no issues whatsoever with criticism. What I do take umbrage at is using derogatory terms like "misogynst" for anyone who dares to express a dissenting opinion.

    As for this

    DeLoftie: It is a straw man to say that by not discussing the man on man violence FemFreq is giving it a pass. Anita in her videos specifically says the videos are only dealing with the common tropes of using women. It is not approving of all the other tropes."

    Widge: Exactly.

    That is not a "straw man", it goes to the heart of the issue. Ironically what Anita does is create "straw man" arguments by selectively only picking scenarios that support her position.

    Which is entirely acceptable as a polemicist. Polemics -which are what all her videos are- are not about presenting both sides of an argument.

    However in the context of a discussion, such as this one, it is fair game to present it in broader context and criticize it in that scope.
    Reply +8
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Wow. I've never seen such a flailing nonsensical attempt at a response.

    You write this:

    1) SHE IS NOT A REAL PERSON. She is a character that was drawn, most likely by a male, for other males to look at. That is why she was placed in the game.

    They all there because they serve a mechanistic purpose.

    You follow it with this:

    2) It is sexualised violence because the game designers created a sex object for the gamer and then provided the tools where the gamer can kill that sex object, being aware that this was an allowed option by the games mechanics and physics engine.

    This is fallacious; What the developers don't do is make a distinction between gendered characters. Which makes sense because despite what you're saying you cannot have sex with these "sex objects". You can only interact with them in the same way you can with other supplemental targets: Avoid or kill.

    Don't you see that you are projecting all this? Any differentiation in what is appropriate conduct is based entirely on appearance and your prejudice of what that appearance connotes.

    As for your laughable attempt at trying to make distance between your stance and that of traditional right-wing repressives, we get this:

    3) No one has every claimed the harm is that causes imitation (straw man), the argument is that the pervasive nature of these tropes in video games creates a validation for sexist social norms.

    That's the classic "desensitization" argument presented with a leftist spin. IT IS NO DIFFERENT.

    Its the usual fall-back position taken in absence of any evidence of direct behavioural correlation between art and reality.

    Once again, it boils down to "if you aren't offended by what I am, you are a bad person." Which is an offensively paternalistic (my God, the irony) attitude, made worse by the double-speak in its presentation.
    Reply +13
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Absolutely correct, however that disdain didn't apparently have any impact on their massive commercial success.

    I'm not saying its a good thing, just pointing out that's the world we live in. And that being the case, I really don't see the same commercial imperatives as being any less applicable to gaming - particularly at the AAA level.

    I'm not a fan of stuff like GTA at all, but apparently millions of people are... and until that stops being the case there'll be more to come.
    Reply +2
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    Stop being defensive and rude and engage with my point.

    Killing is bad. Period. But this is exploitation fiction so its presence is dictated by genre expectation and should be considered socially harmless UNLESS you somehow believe that its likely to cause imitation.

    If you believe in the risk of imitation/desensitization why are you fixated only on females when males are far more likely to be on the receiving end of the violence both in the fiction and in reality?

    And while we're at it, why not think of the children?

    Oh no, you can't do that because that's the province of the right-wing... and you're really so different. Hah.

    But anyway back on point. So its "sexualized" violence just because the victim looks a certain way. That sounds to me like a "she was asking for it" justification, but hey whatever.

    You are imposing sexuality on gender non-specific violence, its like calling a fps racist because some of the soldier models you shoot are non-white!

    Its specious and nonsensical. It only makes sense if you ignore the broader context of the ubiquity of the violence within the scenario.

    Ironically though without a broader social context of supposed harm, what actually is being protested here?

    Being a fucking hit man isn't problematic so long as you don't kill strippers? Kratos can graphically dismember Gods but abusing a temple maiden is beyond the pale...

    We're somehow supposed to overlook all the OTHER mayhem because... because?

    Does the word misanthropy mean anything to you? Why not choose that rather than dashing straight to misogyny?
    Reply +15
  • GreyBeard 03/09/2014


    You consider it "sexualized violence", I say that's a judgement that you are imposing on the media yourself.

    Are the available commands to act upon a female victim specifically different to those available for a male? No, they aren't, so in fact the "sexualization" of the act is purely visual, not functional.

    What you are doing is conflating two basic exploitation principles that are deeply embedded in pop-culture.

    1. Sex sells. The eroticisation of the female form for commercial gain is ubiquitous in our culture. Employed in everything from advertising and fashion, to music and movies. Attractiveness is considered saleable and valuable in a commercial sense.
    That games should somehow be exempt from this is ludicrous.

    2. Violence is popular. Blame it on a taste for escapism, a need for safe, cathartic release of negative emotions - our culture loves depictions of violence and killing.

    Games are especially prone to this because killing and conflict is a conveniently repetitive risk/reward scenario, and most games are extremely repetitive out of the basic need to have a central, iterated and polished play mechanic. This is not easily avoidable because they are as much working devices, as pieces of staged entertainment and there's only a finite amount of mechanics that can be implemented within time/budget.

    Which brings us to the core of the issue: Profit motive.

    AAA games are expensive as hell to make. They are high-risk, but potentially high-reward for their backers. Which leads them to embrace populist aspects so as best to insure a positive return on investment.

    So, it makes sense to inject populist elements like sex and violence so as to bolster a titles commercial viability - especially as its aimed at a "mature" (i.e. exploitation hungry) market.

    This is why nothing is going to change. Anita can cherry-pick where the three elements I mentioned above converge all she wants, but the basic reasons behind their employment will stand.
    Reply +14
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2014


    What on earth did you expect from a game called Hitman? Where you play the eponymous paid-for-hire killer?

    Its exploitation entertainment, so why complain about it not being an exemplar of political correctness?

    I mean, do all the male "props" that the player has the option to murder (or not) not count? And yes, they are all "props" because being a game it has a mechanical function to serve. And that requires a steady feed of new potential "targets" to knock down.
    Reply +8
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2014

    What cracks me up is that nowhere, NOWHERE, in all of this are any actual concrete steps being taken to rein in the lunatic fringe.

    I mean where's the lobby for Twitter to do a better job at policing their service for terroristic threats? Bomb scares, death threats, etc. Fixing that thing is not a problem for "gamers"; its one for politicians, law enforcement, and especially the fucking providers of this service!

    Social media is a massive enabler, not just because it provides a means to get sort-of "up close and personal" with your target (while remaining quasi-anonynous), but its a perfect method of garnering the widescale attention these dysfunctional types crave.

    Cleaning that shit up would be infinitely more effective than any sort of "think of the children" rhetoric about the content of games. Which lest we forget, is what all of this has more or less sprung from. Not offended by the same things we are? You are morally bankrupt and need our guidance...
    Reply +4
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2014

    Anyone else noticed the way this whole debate has gone is really reminiscent of the ludicrous circus that is contemporary American politics?

    Its the cartoonishly evil versus the unbearably self-righteous and condescending! The bleeding edge of adversarial politics where when one side says, "let's have lunch", the other side must reply that "lunch is over! We don't need it!"* just because they have to take an oppositional stance.

    *Brownie points for anyone that knows who I'm paraphrasing with that analogy.

    PS. For the record I'm talking about this whole phenomenon, not just this thread. And I'm not trying to tar everyone participating with the same brush - its just the lunatic fringe on both sides of the aisle driving a lot of the worst excessses.
    Reply +9
  • GreyBeard 02/09/2014

    "If you see hateful, harassing speech, take a public stand against it and make the gaming community a more enjoyable space to be in."

    What is this supposed to mean exactly? People have been taking "a public stand" and that's what has escalated the hate and sectarianism!

    The keyword used by Boogie2988 and notably not used here is Tolerance. A word which shockingly nowadays seems to be considered dubious, particularly by commentators sitting to the left of the aisle.

    Tolerance is not capitulation, its the only rational solution. Because when some (doubtlessly well-meaning) knucklehead tells you "I don't think we should tolerate bigoted opinions", the obvious answer is well what happens when your opposition fails to make them stop?

    You shout louder to make them give up? Do you try and suppress the spread of their opinion by excluding them from forums and other places where they can spread their "hate"? What happens when they still won't change their views? How far down the rabbit-hole are you going to go for your just cause?

    We've just exhausted discussion, suppression, and exclusion, so what's left? Re-education? Imprisonment? What's the final solution?

    Tolerance means putting up with shit we as individuals don't like, its the price we pay for not having people jumping on our shit every time we express a view they disagree with.

    Its not pretty and its not perfect, but its a damn sight better than endless conflict.

    Well unless you can effectively monetize the war, which I'm sad to say is precisely what a lot of the internet media propogating this horse-shit is doing.
    Reply +28
  • Sega claims Gearbox led the marketing for Aliens: Colonial Marines

  • GreyBeard 04/09/2014

    Promotion is one thing, knowingly publishing a title in a shitty state is another.
    And they aren't even remotely equal in magnitude.
    Reply +1
  • Why we need more developers like Zoe Quinn

  • GreyBeard 30/08/2014

    A don't know about a "future" for this sort of title, especially when something like Alter Ego was published by Activision in 1986 (in both specifically male and female versions), and ummm... nothing changed.

    The "interesting" stuff has always been out there, individuals have been making individualistic games year-in, year-out since the dawn of the medium (Hell, how many genres did Jaron Lanier invent with Moondust in 1983), but only recently has the media taken any notice.

    The whole "indie game" movement is a media-construct, which I don't have a problem with whatsoever, but what does grind my gears is the abject lack of historical perspective they are placed in. The true pioneers -like the two titles referenced above- are largely forgotten, which is a travesty of justice in my opinion, and a sad reminder of how poor the gaming press is about covering anything but current affairs.
    Reply +14
  • Leading creators back latest Tropes vs Women video

  • GreyBeard 27/08/2014


    The titles Anita highlights all sit fairly comfortably within the "action" genre. So, I'd argue that the full spectrum already exists and she simply cherry-picks for material that supports her message.

    Death Wish may be trashy, but its populist trash so is pretty much guaranteed to be more widespread due to the commercial imperative of the business.

    Is it problematic that it uses graphic rape to act as a plot device to spur our hero onto his vigilante mission -maybe so, but the real selling point of the movie(s) and why people kept making the damn things was seeing Bronson mercilessly gunning down deserving low-lifes.

    That vicarious thrill of cutting through the gordion knot of the judicial system and dispensing "justice" was what put bums on seats.

    And with the games Anita highlights, you see the exact same principle.

    These games are about thrill-killing, which is straight-up morally dubious in the first place, but... popular.

    And ultimately that just shows why despite all the controversy, nothing is actually being achieved by this sort of specious criticism. You could remove/replace every female character from these games and they'd still be morally bankrupt!

    The world will not be a better place post-Sarkeesian because in her haste to make currency for her feminism, she's missing the forest for the trees.

    If you wish to be offended, be offended by the lack of humanity shown by offering death-as-entertainment, not the gender representation of its mechanics.
    Reply +10
  • GreyBeard 27/08/2014

    What kind of bothers me is that Anita's stuff is presented by sites like this as being straight commentary or discussion, and not as the forthright polemic that it is.

    A key attribute of polemicism is that it not only stands for the point being made, but explicitly stands AGAINST oppositional viewpoints and attempts to diminish them as part of the argument. This is evidenced by the way only footage in support of her argument is presented in her videos. They are not meant for discussion, they are political statements.

    And like all political statements, they are deserving of scrutiny and criticism, and not just laid out there as "inconvenient truths".
    Reply +15
  • GreyBeard 27/08/2014

    I respect Anita and support her right to publicize her socio-political agenda.

    However, that doesn't mean to say I'm oblivious to how transparently disingenuous and polemical it all is. Ultimately what it boils down to is an inability to accept that most game are closer to exploitation movies than serious dramatic discourse.

    In simple terms, more Death Wish than the The Accused. Which is kind of a no-brainer when you consider the economics of the market and the functional requirements of form and genre.

    In the final analysis, while Ms Sarkeesian's criticisms are valid, it seems peculiarly opportunistic and rather specious, to fixate on games for such issues. Its a convenient "gap in the market" with which to gain visibility, but other than that its no more insightful than doing a series critical of slasher movies or similar grindhouse fare where similarly "objectionable" content is also common.
    Reply +15
  • PlayStation Network returns online following DDOS attack

  • GreyBeard 25/08/2014

    The bomb hoax tweet... my God. Why on earth would you do something so fucking stupid in today's America. That's straight-up terrorism in the present climate and pretty much guarantees the harshest possible treatment when the authorities catch up with them. And they will, because its absolutely not the sort of thing that can be seen to go unpunished.

    It just boggles my mind that anyone would be so colossally stupid or arrogant enough to pull this sort of stunt "for the lulz". And that's exactly what it is, there is no agenda, no goal, no real reason for any of this bullshit.

    Talk about throwing your life away...
    Reply +23
  • Is there more to Quantum Break than run-of-the-mill third-person shooting?

  • GreyBeard 20/08/2014

    Sounds like a combination of God Of War: Ascenscions time powers with a dash of Arkham Origin's crime-scene mode. In simple terms an animation playback manipulation system stage-dressed to fit the fiction.

    Nothing wrong with that, just not terribly new or exciting.
    Reply -1