ThunderPeel2001

Anita's comment was about Double Dragon Neon and it's portrayal of women. It was not about sexism. Secondly, your analogy is very vague. If the video was meant as entertainment, then it's fine to have subjective opinion. If it's attempting to be a serious academic work, then it's completely inappropriate. I personally see serious academic works as being more important than mere entertainment (you may disagree with me on that), so it pained me when Anita fell into a realm that wouldn't even be acceptable for an article on Wikipedia. Also: Sorry Ben

What about Ron? The guy seems to bounce around from company to company. Things ended badly at Hothead. Now he's leaving DF. The Cave was an awesome game -- I hope it finds an audience eventually. And I hope Ron has some financial stability...?

Some good points here, I think.

I love how RPS apparently didn't bother to try and get a quote from an EA representative... they already have a story fit to print. Journalism. *sigh*

Apart from her single subjective comment -- sorry! I know everyone's tired of that, it's just you highlighted why it's important that she remains objective.

I really want Arrested Development on Bluray -- I hope the new series leads to it being released!

Bah! How did I miss that Kickstarter!

Does anyone know why Chris Avalone (surely the person most responsible for Planescape: Torment?) isn't getting involved in this?

Anyone know the answer to my Third Policeman question?

I think I preferred Rare Exports to Troll Hunter -- but maybe I should watch them again. Troll Hunter bored me in ways that I don't remember Rare Exports doing. Arbitrage was pretty run-of-the-mill, but it was also definitely "quite good". I quite liked the ending. Also, I'll say it again, but everyone should just go out and watch Searching for Sugarman -- and try to know as little about it as possible before going in. It's a great feel-good documentary.

I've been saying for about 10 years now that there should be porn FOR teenagers. I.e. Normal, every day, healthy porn -- showing sex as it's enjoyed by most people, most of the time, especially those new to it -- and not "I'm going slap you in the face, and call you a whore while shoving my dick up your ass" porn. Instead of trying to hide porn from them, we should have porn made especially for them: Want to watch porn? Here, you're allowed to watch THIS. I think Europe does a much better job at dealing with these sorts of things that we (the UK) and the US do -- Their teen magazines have full page photos of naked readers (in their teens) talking about their bodies in frank and honest terms. That seems a lot healthier to me than being ashamed of it -- but the whole explosion of the internet has only complicated things. I can only hope that teens today just see crazy porn on the net, and don't let it affect them. Unfortunately a friend of mine told me how he stumbled across his older brother's porn collection -- really messed up porn collection -- (this was pre-internet) and how he felt it had messed him up as an adult. *sigh*

I certainly agree with that, and I think the video did a fine job of conclusively illustrating that point.

The message isn't literally "don't get raped", it's "don't put yourself in a position where you might get raped". I'm sure you've seen that message many times ("safety in numbers", etc. etc.). If you think that people were only telling you, a woman, to do that to prevent yourself from being robbed, I'm afraid I think you missed the subtext. Men are actually more likely to get robbed/beaten than women -- but we don't get that message drilled into us. So why is the message, "women -- stay safe!", instead of "men -- don't rape!". At worst, both messages should be put out there -- but they're not.

Wait, you haven't actually watched the video that's being discussed...?

Thanks for explaining that. I'm guilty of not reading the thread. My bad!

FFS, I'm getting so sick of deliberately belligerent comments like this. What has happened to this forum? Once upon a time you could express your opinion on something and get reasonable feedback. Instead you post a perfectly well reasoned observation, and all you get is people going out of their way to tell you you're wrong, or that you're wrong to even bring it up. Any counter points are completely ignored, and the same empty comments get repeated, over and over. RANT: It's blatantly fricking obvious that the video was meant as a serious attempt at tackling a serious issue. Indeed, if proof is needed (and really, it shouldn't be) it was stated as much on their Kickstarter -- where it was revealed, amongst other things, that her videos have been integrated into University Curriculums, even including Law Schools. I worry that using subjective language found in rants [like this one] can only undermine those attempts at being taken seriously. It's not even really a question of taste. It's unprofessional and unacademic. The only thing up for debate us how negatively it affected the message of the video, but EVERYONE AGREES: It doesn't, really. Thankfully. But the fact that it slipped through the editorial net, in an otherwise serious and objective piece, is worrisome to me. Why? Because I don't want it to undermine what I consider to be a potentially very important series. Don't tell this isn't worth bringing up. Don't tell me I'm wrong to be concerned (unless you can actually back up what you're saying). It's not a big issue, but I'm not wrong for raising it.

Fair enough. I personally think she was trying very hard to produce something professional and objective. Indeed, I would not have sat through two minutes if it was just someone stating their opinion, never mind 23. Also, just because it's on YouTube doesn't mean a video can't strive to be objective. The reason I loved it so much was because it wasn't just a video with somebody going, "here's what I think", it was somebody taking the time to document something and try to educate the audience. A rarity in this day and age.

I disagree with this. The amount of research involved, even just to get the clips to illustrate her points, must have taken many man hours -- and are exactly the type of thing you don't get with YouTube videos with a budget of zero. (Instead you usually just get people ranting, with no attempts to back up what they're saying at all.) I was personally very impressed with how professional the whole thing was -- with the exception of [redacted].

Thank you, Gormongous, for taking the time to explain rather than write a sarcastic comment! To the first quote: I stand by that "using terminology like that just undercuts her whole detached and professional approach" -- because it does. Does that mean it undercuts her approach to the point where what she says is invalid? No, I don't think so, but it definitely detracts from from her approach. As for the second one: Yep, that definitely gave out the wrong message. I apologize. I really did enjoy the video. But the fact I enjoyed it so much is why it bothered me that she made that slip. I don't want people to use it against her argument. (And if anyone thinks that's what I'm doing, then you've totally misunderstood my intent!)

Whatever happened to critical thinking...? If you find fault with something then the entire thing is ruined? Is that the rule now?

I think I'm finding it difficult to believe that A) People seem to have some issues with accepting that it was inappropriate and undermining of her argument as a whole, and Anyone thinks I think it ruined the whole video (or indeed its central argument...?). Did you miss the part where I wrote: "Anyways, it was still great. It was so nice to watch someone build a very logical and consistent argument, and back it up with a ton of examples. I've never seen the "games are sexist" argument put forward in such a conclusive way before." ?

Balls! I decided to look up The Third Policeman and I think I spoiled the ending for myself. Have I just ruined the book?

Most academics aren't able to have complete editorial control of their video, though. She could have easily dubbed that moment (especially as it occurred when she wasn't on camera). It was an unfortunate slip that only undermines her objective argument (and I would feel exactly the same way if it was a guy). Anyways, it was still great. It was so nice to watch someone build a very logical and consistent argument, and back it up with a ton of examples. I've never seen the "games are sexist" argument put forward in such a conclusive way before.

Michael Moore never just came out and said, "Bush is an asshole". As manipulative as his films are, he at least tries to show instead of tell.

I know. How many photos do we need of him on here?? It seems he posts a photo of himself at every available opportunity.