PlugMonkey Comments

Page 1 of 74

  • Blizzard will wipe Heroes of the Storm accounts one last time

  • PlugMonkey 22/09/2014

    @Kaprikawn

    Blizzard are the masters of getting money out of people and making it seem reasonable.

    I've spent ~£130 on Hearthstone, and don't regret it.
    They certainly are. A free game where you've spent £130? That's the very definition of evil when King or Supercell do it.

    It seems to be a very different kettle of halibut if the game is aimed at core gamers instead of casual ones...
    Reply +1
  • New lighting tech debunks moon landing conspiracy theories

  • PlugMonkey 22/09/2014

    @Cirius-Moonlite

    Mir doesn't count its not on the moon but why isn't it on the moon?
    Why would it be on the moon? It's a barren floating rock that's a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot further away than the much more useful space station they built instead.

    The reason we haven't been back to the moon since 1972 is either MASSIVE INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY, or that it's a bloody long way away and there's nothing remotely interesting up there.

    Hmm. Which to chose?
    Reply +1
  • Kickstarter updates Terms for successful-then-cancelled projects

  • PlugMonkey 22/09/2014

    @Faramis

    Having spent all weekend playing Wasteland 2, I'm not sure I can entirely agree...
    Reply +3
  • Bastard of the Old Republic

  • PlugMonkey 22/09/2014

    This article is one of the all time classics. Reply 0
  • Planetary Annihilation review

  • PlugMonkey 16/09/2014

    Too much Real Time Efficiency these days and not enough Real Time Strategy.

    Someone needs to take the economy back out of these games. It's completely taken over.
    Reply +1
  • Lego Batman 3: Beyond Gotham first Lego game to get a season pass

  • PlugMonkey 12/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine

    Firstly, Iím not Ďchampioning DLCí. Iím saying to judge each game on its individual merits, while also explaining some of the technical and logistical considerations. Having a neutral perspective on something is not Ďchampioningí.

    Secondly, Iím not actually professionally involved at all. Iíve never made any or been involved in making any day 1 DLC. I do have a better view of the landscape, however, so I know why people do it. Unsurprisingly, itís the same reason any commercial decision is made: thereís demand for it.

    It matters because we've reached the point where companies are actively degrading the base games, stripping out the most desirable content for sale as DLC, and I don't think that's healthy for the medium in the long term.
    Some are. Most arenít, imho, but that isn't the point. The point myself and my brother Monkey are trying to make is that the production timescale and/or presence of DLC on the disc are NOT useful indicators of whether this is the case.

    Right now I could cut planned content from my game, and as long as I hold it back long enough and force you to sit and wait while you download the damn thing, people will sing my praises for doing DLC Ďrightí. Meanwhile, if I use the projected DLC revenue to secure increased funding, and use that funding to create great value additional content that couldnít exist otherwise, people will hammer me into the ground just for adopting an efficient production schedule and more convenient delivery method. It's crazy.

    The resentment of on-disc DLC is entirely rational, as it demonstrates an active decision to withhold content to milk the player.
    Ultimately, my point is that this statement is incorrect. You are basing your decision on an incomplete picture of the process, but if I try to explain the process better, you basically accuse me of bias. I have no reason to be biased. I have no ulterior motive. I only want people who play games to have a better idea of how they are made, so that they can make better consumer choices.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 11/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine

    Nope, you'll just have to believe me, I'm afraid. Or not. It's entirely up to you.

    It's the answer to the question though. Or one of them, at least.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 11/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine

    Really? Any title worth its salt will still be offering entertainment from the core content alone during that time.
    Well, my good man, that rather depends on how intensely you play it, doesn't it? It may take you and me a couple of months (or sometimes, years) to meander our way through the average single player game experience, but there are plenty of gamers out there who will chew through the same thing in a week or less. Itís very hard to sell DLC to someone if their copy of the game is already in CEX.

    Now, answer me this: who do you suppose is more likely to buy extra content for their games in the first place? The sedate meanderers like you and me, with our massive backlogs of unplayed games? Or the Hungry, Hungry Hippos who munch through a game in a weekend?

    You're contorting yourself into some quite impressive knots to justify a rather shoddy business practice.
    Lol. No. Iím telling you what the sales figures say. On single player games, DLC expansions sell more in the first two weeks after the main game release than at any other point. Above you will find my personal interpretation of why this is the case, but it is the case.

    DLC is released when it is released because that is when the demand for the DLC is highest. Maybe not from you, but still, that is when most people who buy DLC buy their DLC. If they didnít want it then, they would wait, like you do. Itís not going anywhere. But they donít.

    The whole thing is entirely driven by demand and you, and lots of other people like you, need to learn that there are people in this big, wide, wonderful world who arenít you. Releasing DLC on day one means everyone can have it when theyíre ready. For some reason, you think these other players either donít exist, or that they shouldnít have it when theyíre ready because it offends you.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 10/09/2014

    @FireMonkey

    Lol. If I wasn't me, I'd think you were and alt of me. ;)

    Well spoken, for what good it'll do. All completely, totally and 100% true.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 10/09/2014

    @Darren

    Well, 'wring' and 'tempt' feel like fairly opposite ends of the money extraction spectrum to me. Push vs. pull. Forcing money out of you vs. getting you to throw it at them.

    It is waving a carrot, but they only have a carrot. The gamers have the stick. And my god, do they not need much reason to start swinging!
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 10/09/2014

    @julianhazeldine

    The issue is that the game and the DLC is are both made at the same time, as proven by the latter's inclusion on the disk.
    The Lord of the Rings movies were all made at the same time. So you should get them all for the price of one. Right? Peter Jackson is deliberately withholding content to milk the cinema goer? You think that is a rational position?

    No, because that's obviously not how budgets work. If there's no projected revenue for some content, there's no budget for the content, and so there's no content. Jackson got the budget for three films because he was going to get the revenue for three films. Not having any money to pay your staff isn't a logistical reason?

    Now ask yourself why Peter Jackson chose to make all three films at the same time instead of making one and then reassembling the entire team to make another, and you'll know why some developers make the DLC at the same time as the main project.

    (That's without even going in to when the DLC's target audience wants the DLC - which is during the first 2 weeks after release.)

    I know this goes against your gut feeling, and I know I'll get negged for this, but there is no logic to your position. Only gut feeling. If you hate these developers, you also have to hate Peter Jackson.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    No I have never said DLC in general so not sure where you get that
    Srsly? I may have picked it up from this:

    While admittedly I hate the DLC culture
    the stink of DLC we have to deal with
    The DLC rot is bad enough for us
    That wasn't about DLC in general? I'm sure you can see how I might have got the impression you generally don't much like it...

    If you didn't dislike DLC in general, why would you object so strongly to DLC for kids specifically?

    I don't have a bias for or against DLC, which is why I don't see anything wrong in selling it to kids.

    You can see that, surely? You have to think it's bad before you can think selling it to kids is worse. You have to have a negative general bias to project along, and I don't.

    This DLC looks alright, so I think this DLC might be alright, rather than it being automatically tainted with the general stink and rot.
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    No, your argument seems to be about DLC in general. DLC is bad, and therefore DLC for kids is worse.

    I have no general DLC opinion. Some of it is good, some of it is less good, just like everything else in life. I'd like to be talking in terms of specifics, but no one else is willing to look past general prejudices.

    Honestly hope you are a dev otherwise your view on exploiting young children is quite depressing as a consumer.
    That's one of the most random things I've ever read. You hope I'm a dev so at least my views are rooted in pure evil? And therefore that's OK?
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    Because they've (potentially) got a really good value game and (potentially) really good value DLC. (Nobody is bothering to check).

    The mere presence of DLC is not a rational thing to hate. It's not. No matter how much you hate it, which is obviously very, very much. There's still no rationale to it.
    Reply -3
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @Darren

    And this is my 3rd favourite logic gap. How on earth does a games company 'wring money' out of you? There's no monopoly, no cartel. This isn't the big energy companies freezing grannies to death because they have no alternative.

    Video games is a fiercely competitive, consumer led industry where we, the consumer, call every one one of the shots and anybody who doesn't make us pleased enough goes bust.

    If another 35 quid's worth of DLC exists for a game it's because someone who isn't you is being made happy by it. There is no other reason it could possibly exist, because there is no way to force anything on anybody. The consumer pulls, the developer has no way to push. The developer has no power in this relationship at all.

    It's weird that people can't see that.
    Reply -6
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    I don't agree with counting hours either. If that's the metric we use, the result is padding. It's just an illustration. Rate content anyway you like, I still don't see how adding more to what's there makes what's there worse. I don't see how what's being added is automatically a 'rip', completely divorced from what it is or how much it costs.

    Anyway, people are banging on about 'stink' and 'corruption' and 'exploitation' without having any logical basis to it. I've pointed out there's no logical basis to it. There really isn't anything else to discuss.

    You're quite welcome to take an irrational hatred to something - I do it all the time - just so long as you know it's irrational. Now you do, so everything is in order.
    Reply -5
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    But in my example why is Game B fleecing and Game A not?

    Again, I understand the gut feeling, but I can't get my head round the logic. No-one questions what is in a game, hackles only get raised at what isn't or what gets added later.

    We all end up sounding like our parents in the end. ;)
    Reply -4
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @bad09

    This is the other bit of the logic I can't fathom:

    Game A offers 25 hours of gameplay for £40.

    Game B offers 30 hours of gameplay for £40, and an additional 4 hours of DLC gameplay for £5.

    Game A is perceived as being better value than Game B.

    Conclusion: The absence of additional content drives value for money, not the presence of content.
    Reply -7
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @Optimaximal

    That's true actually. Once you don't have a disc, you can't have something that was 'already on the disc', and the nagging discomfort disappears.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @jayolad

    And I can completely understand the gut feeling. But the logic still drives me crazy. ;)
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @monkeychris

    The difference being it's day one DLC and if the download is any more than a 1MB file to unlock them, I'd be surprised.

    That's like having the police station, hospital and houses in the box and having to pay to use them.
    This is the bit of the anti DLC logic that I can never fathom:

    The fire station and the police station Lego sets are made at the same time, designed to be used together. If you buy the fire station and then want the police station, you have to walk to the shop to get it. (Edit: Or wait for the postman - an even closer analogy). There is no way to save you the inconvenience of the walk to the shop.

    The game and DLC are made at the same time. If you buy the game and then want the DLC, you have to wait for it to download. That, you say, would be fine.

    Or, they could save you the wait, and just put it on the empty space on the disc. Only that makes it a rip off.

    Conclusion: It's the inconvenience of the download that makes it value for money.

    /headexplodes
    Reply +3
  • Teens react to the NES

  • PlugMonkey 09/09/2014

    @Merdalor

    Is this like how pulling your handbrake without holding the button down speeds up wear? Only it speeds it up from wearing out in a millennia to a few centuries, so no-one cares. Bear in mind I also read my comics without gloves on. :eek:

    At least someone is acknowledging I haven't been imagining things for 25 years.

    Next time I'll try the compressed air pump and see if that does the trick.

    Edit: Lol. Who'm I kidding? I've been straight on ebay for a pair gamebits to open the carts. What metal polish do you use? lol

    I want to make it clear this is because you've told me I can make my collection 0.5% more shiny. Nothing to do with corrosion. Honest.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @The-Bodybuilder

    They didn't even say anything bad. They were all, like, super excited.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @Bruh

    What exactly about my dad's Dinky cars or toy soldiers was it you think out foxed me? I had my mum's old Dansette as a kid to play records on. I still use my grandad's old coffee pot today!

    The issue is that technology from my parents' generation to mine had barely moved an inch compared to me vs. kids today.

    (Also, I still keep my MegaDrive plugged into my TV and play it regularly. Great games are great games.)
    Reply +5
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @bad09

    I know I do.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @penhalion

    I don't know. All I can tell you it that it worked, and it still works.

    What I want to know is where this bullocks myth that it didn't work came from. Was this on QI?

    At worse you had to simply wipe the contacts off with a dry cloth.
    Well, yeah. Or, at best, blow on them. ;)
    Reply 0
  • Editor's blog: About the Destiny review

  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @Ajent

    There was an open Beta available to EVERYONE.
    An even better point.

    Missed the beta? Why not read a review of the beta? The internet is full of them. The beta provides a much better foundation for a review than the final game on a closed server would anyway.

    As sly deceptions go, it's not a very convincing one.
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @dogmanstaruk

    We don't.
    Exactly.

    Alternatively, if you think do, just wait a few days! It's not like you have to make a decision today or miss out forever.
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 08/09/2014

    @WhiteUmbrella

    what appears to be a spin article written on behalf of the publisher ... why that might have been done is anyone's guess.
    I'm anyone. My guess is they just agree with each other.

    You can't review an online game until it's online. Even if they'd been a reviewers' server, EG wouldn't post the review until they'd tested it in the wild, so why would they object to there not being a reviewers' server?

    Rather than poking fingers as shadows, why don't you tell us how you would solve this problem?

    The consumer message seems pretty clear to me: if you're unsure, wait a few days and read the review you've just been told is coming soon.
    Reply +11
  • Sometimes I wish more games were just a vertical slice

  • PlugMonkey 06/09/2014

    @mega-gazz

    Really? I see an industry that is providing more incredibly good value, top notch entertainment than I can find time to experience.

    I guess I'm just a glass-half-full kind of guy.
    Reply +2
  • Editor's blog: A brief note about "GamerGate"

  • PlugMonkey 05/09/2014

    @Kryon

    Well, this explains an awful lot. Thank you. I feel better far prepared now I see their true face.

    I shall keep an eye out for them, and report them to the local authorities where possible to be tagged and monitored. Who says there isnít reasoned and sensible debate on this topic?
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 05/09/2014

    @Kryon

    I realised a while after my last post that I could actually answer your question properly.

    Then I came back, read your last post and realised youíre just making shit up and know it. Bronies! Lol! Thatís made my morning.
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 05/09/2014

    @Kryon

    I was just asking if SJW guys do the five knuckle shuffle to porn or not, but nobody can answer me lol
    I wonder why that is?

    Maybe it's because nobody here knows, has met or has even ever seen one of your 'SJWs'?

    You might as well ask me what Sasquatch wanks over.

    I'm going to say unicorns.

    The perv.
    Reply -2
  • PlugMonkey 05/09/2014

    @Kryon

    The fundamental problem with your position that for you to be aligned against these 'Social Justice Warriors', you have to have the whole issue exactly as ass-backwards as they do.

    The real issues don't run along the lines either of you are presenting. Neither of you can win the fight, because neither of you are fighting over anything. You're just fighting, and so will keep fighting forever.

    ^That paragraph right there is a 37 word summary of human history.
    Reply -1
  • PlugMonkey 04/09/2014

    @blarty

    Sorry I just got back into this conversation - when you say lynch mob - to which 'side' are you currently referring?
    I'm referring to the people hurling abuse and threats, for which there is never, ever a justification. I don't know what 'side' they're on, other than not mine.

    I think the 'sides' are illusory, fighting a 'war' that doesn't actually exist. Unfortunately, the collateral damage is very, very real.
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 04/09/2014

    @Guy.J.

    When the punishment is carried out by a lynch mob, that's also a pretty big clue...
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 04/09/2014

    @DaveDavis

    No financial gain then?

    Someone promoted a friend's free game about mental health.

    The impression I get with most of the other information surrounding this issue is that when you add it to the sentence above, the overall truth quotient is likely to go down rather than up.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 04/09/2014

    @TarickStonefire

    The thing is, no journalist will have written those things and meant to direct them at every single person who plays games.
    Therein lies another little absurdity I've witnessed while surfing the reaction to this nonsense.

    I've seen people say that characters like Sarkeesian should just ignore the torrents of abuse that are specifically, directly and personally targeted at them. (It's just the internet! Ignore it! It's part of celebrity! It happens to everyone!)

    But then turn around and be cut to the quick, injured to the point of outrage, by a general statement made not about them, but about a group they somewhat associate themselves with.

    Wut?
    Reply +6
  • PlugMonkey 04/09/2014

    @DaveDavis

    Yes, it is. Is it an inaccurate one?
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 04/09/2014

    @WhiteUmbrella

    Here's what I find absurd: It was a free game. Designed to promote the understanding of, and help people with, depression. No personal gain was ever sought or found.

    The 'conflict of interest' at the heart of this gigantically destructive poostorm is someone giving a plug to their friend's free game designed to promote the understanding of, and help people with, depression.

    /slowclap
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 04/09/2014

    @tiagoresende

    Women already have 'the floor', insofar as anybody has 'the floor'. The problem is no one has any idea where this 'floor' is or who is really on it.

    I think that because this:

    if women are COMPLETELY in charge of the creative process
    is not how development of anything but the tiniest indie game works. It's a team sport. A collaborative effort.

    Who cares about Zoe Quinn? What did she really do? She made a very personal video game that her boyfriend liked and so wrote about. Then they had a bad split, so now she has slept her way to the top of a corrupt games journalism? Sheesh.

    And finally Anita Sarkeezian, the one who decided to push to the forefront that men who play games are misogynists. That we are incapable of critical thinking.
    Never happened. Sorry. All these things everyone's so angry about Sarkeesian saying, she never said. Not in the videos I've watched. She points out where there's use of women in games that is lazy.

    The thing that really cracks me up is that I get the distinct impression that the people telling me Anita Sarkeesian is stupid and evil and should leave our games alone are exactly the same ones who keep gushing over The Last of Us and telling me what a FANTASTIC! piece of story telling it is.

    The Last of Us isn't a FANTASTIC! piece of story telling, it's just what you get when you stop leaning on all the lazy tropes Anita Sarkeesian highlights in her videos. Ellie is a great character because she's not just a damsel, or a sexy victim, or 'Ms Joel'. If a few more devs listened to Sarkeesian, the only result would be a few more games like TLOU.

    (While we're talking about things that never happened - 'the industry' labelling you a "bad, evil, lowly, gamer": never happened. Phil Fish is not 'the industry'. 'The industry' think you're one of the good guys. That's why they wrote this letter to you! The two and a half thousand signatories you've never heard before - meet 'the industry'. The invisible people.)
    Reply +4
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @tiagoresende

    Where are the female developers?
    Um, working in development teams around the world? Developing games? Where they've always been?

    Next time you finish a game, you might notice a list of people scroll by. The ones with women's names are frequently women.

    Is Zoe Quinn your spokesperson, your golden efigy of choice?
    Um, no. That would be like any one random male developer being a spokesman for all male developers. Is American McGee the golden effigy of all male developers? No, he's one outspoken individual.

    Is Anita Sarkeezian your spokesperson, your zealot, to whom we must listen to?
    Um, no. Why would she be? If you don't want to explore female tropes in video games, don't watch her videos. Anita Sarkeesian is of considerably greater significance to her enemies than her 'allies'. She's like the Richard Dawkins of video game feminism.

    The more comments I read, the more I realise this isn't about the developers at all. It's never been about the developers. The actual developers of the actual games you all play and love are so utterly invisible, a persona has been created for them.

    One that everyone can universally hate, apparently.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @Demeisen

    That's probably a fair addition, seeing as I've barely turned on a console since I hooked my PC up to my TV. And last time I went on a big lad's night, I took my clunky old laptop with me. We played Nidhogg and Samurai Gunn to the wee hours. Does that matter? If that's where the cool stuff is, people should just go with it. We can't fight it because there's no one to fight. It's not the developers' doing, it's the market's. People can hate the developers all they like.

    A Wii U is becoming a strangely attractive proposition though. I think Sony do some good niche stuff too, to be fair. Some mainstream companies will always invest in niche products, because they know that's where the next mainstream hit will come from. This is true in music, books and film too.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @Kryon

    Lol. Interestingly, what you've actually done there is kind of proven the whole "gamers are dead" point.

    The gamer identity used to be one of a social pariah, bathed in the green-screen glow of barely recognisable, abstract images.

    People who liked explosions, violence and boobies wouldn't give us the time of day. We were happy.

    If you are A GAMER!, then what am I?

    I am dead.

    :(
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @tiagoresende

    Post cross. I wrote that last one before I saw this new one.

    I agree. There's a handful of trolls, and a handful of tabloidy type journos and big ego devs, and they're both inciting people to pick sides. Leave them to it, I say. Neither actually represents the side they claim to, because I'm pretty sure we're supposed to be all on the same side.
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @tiagoresende

    providing unfocused, unfinished and bland experiences with the "AAA" seal of approval...in time, gaming will collapse to a value-less medium, overly expensive and increasingly less enticing, both for gamers and designers.
    What you have just described is the mainstream. Music, film, TV, books - take your pick, that description fits perfectly.

    I agree with a lot of what Dan Golding says in his article. I think a lot of this friction is rooted in the upheaval of the emergence of the mainstream.

    My honest forecast is this: the mainstream will keep peddling out design by committee, box ticking, lowest common denominator pap. Meanwhile, the fringe will keep producing the exciting, challenging, varied content we - the gaming enthusiasts - all love. Just like with music and film and TV and books.

    Oh, and 'this industry' doesn't think that games enthusiasts are bad people. The people who devote their lives to playing games, to making games and to writing about games - we're all the same people. The two sides being presented as the only ones to choose from are both the wrong sides. I reject them both.
    Reply +2
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @Ambient_Riot

    The problem is that these gaming sites are acting like a large number of gamers are behind or support the harassment of devs, when if you actually look at Youtube and Twitter it's only a couple dozen individuals.
    All of the abusive and threatening behaviour surrounding video games is the result of only a couple of dozen individuals? I find that very hard to believe.

    No, I think it's become a significant number and it's being acknowledged and reported as a significant number.

    It's also a minority, and is being acknowledged and reported as a minority. If it wasn't, there wouldn't be an open letter written to the majority asking for their help in tackling it. If it was perceived as everyone that was doing it, there wouldn't be any point, would there?
    Reply 0
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @arcam

    and so IMO the main problem here is one of miscommunication.
    That's how it seems to me too.
    Reply +1
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @Guy.J.

    I'm aiming it at anyone that can explain. Anyone who considers themselves to be on either of the 'sides' that appear to be aligned along completely the wrong axis.

    It's not just EG linking the two issues. Kotaku UK's report on the open letter didn't mention GamerGate or Zoe Quinn, but the comments thread sure did. There seems to be an inexorable link that strikes me as irrelevant. I don't care what the abusees did this time round, the abuse and the threats have to stop.

    Then there's this counter petition, which seems like a weird response. It's basically restating exactly the same thing as the open letter, but twisting it into some sort of us vs. them between people who should really be agreeing.

    I genuinely have no idea what's going on and why this letter isn't just being universally supported. The abusive and threatening behaviour that surrounds video gaming has been building for some time, it's unjustifiable whatever the circumstances, and it absolutely has to stop.

    Where is there an argument to be had?
    Reply +3
  • PlugMonkey 03/09/2014

    @redcrayon

    Is violence against men in games also something we should look at and talk about? Yes.
    I wish that was the standard response.

    I don't really understand why people think Sarkeesian is denying that violence also happens to men in video games.

    I watch the videos and see her break down the ways violence is used that are specific to women. At no point does she deny there are others that are specific to men, or general to both. They're just outside her remit of 'Tropes vs Women'.
    Reply +2