Game News Video Games And Male Gaze

Click here and disable ads!

To be honest Cat, when I read your post today, I entered butthurt mode and procured a gigantic rant. Fortunately, for our mental health a couple of hours on fresh air in blazing heat and a cold shower was enough to restore me to my senses and see the larger picture.

I think what happened my friend was once again the case of terrible miscommunication.

You will remember this:

And you will remember that it was not so immediatelly followed by this:

What I meant to say here is that since the time we started discussion point 1) we’ve developed the sufficient understanding of each other’s perspectives.

After the point we agreed on common definition of "objectivity" my idea was not to prove that judgment was objectively possible. My point was to prove that with even with limited knowledge, deficient senses and brain judgment is useful, therefore conversations with the madmen are useful, and therefore every delusion is useful but its usefulness depends on what it is used for. For example you won’t fly high in the sky if you start shaking your arms fast, but you will if you build a flying machine using the delusions which were proven to work in our collective worldview (gravity, aerodynamics, measurements etc.).

In short - not in one place of my post did I refer or mean the general notion of objectivity in the sense thatthis is objectively wrong/good/green.

You will also remember that what followed was this:

To paraphrase: Yes, you are totally right. Within the framework of objectivity as defined by you, this is totally true. I’d sign that with both paws. I agree with that, although my own delusion about how this is so is a little bit different - we will discuss those later.

Likewise

Well, this was not supposed to be a hypocritical statement. Rather, because I agreed with you earlier this was the extension of my own view delusion. This shows why I both agree with you why being judgmental just doesn’t cut it, and yet I claim that judgment itself is valuable - for your private and collective subjectivity.

Let me give a hypothetical example to clear that up. It’s slightly extreme, depending on your angle.

There's me and you walking in a city. As we walk we notice a child - a boy crying on the pavement. Let's say that in your mind you feel sorry for the boy and this prompts your action - you want to help the boy, learn what happened to him, perhaps contact the police to find his parents. Before you do that I approach the boy and give him a solid kick in the butt. The reason? In my mind I subjectively perceived the boy's crying as very amusing and to make myself even more happy - by making him cry even louder - I hit him.

The question to you - what your reaction would be to this entire scene? Objectively, what happened is just me kicking a boy? How is that a "bad"/"good" thing? Yes, your judgment would be conditioned by your subjectivity and consensual subjectivity that say "inflicting pain (especially on the defenseless) is bad" or "deriving pleasure from another's suffering is bad". Your judgment could then extrapolate the whole event into possible future scenarios in which you or anyone you know would suffer (collective subjective) because of my finding other people crying pleasant and amusing and then acting upon it. I somehow get the feeling you'd renounce any contact with me on account of your judgment and I (the "real" I who is writing these words) somehow wouldn't be surprised.

In answer to your first Probatio Diabolica. It has been demonstrated that you need to judge *something* in order to live and survive. It has been demonstrated that believing in some subjective judgments AND acting upon them may lead to a change in (at the very least subjective) reality. It has been empirically proven that people believing in some subjective judgments can create things and develop/find new concepts whereas misjudgment may lead to (subjectively) undesirable consequences (e.g. death). This is why judgment is beneficial (and misjudgment is not).

Whose? Cat, please. I cannot doubt my subjective beliefs when I watch a game trailer - there's no one to interact with so I just make or state an opinion and that's it. Otherwise I couldn't even get up from the bed without doubting myself - and I doubt myself I cannot act. I also cannot really doubt them each time I face something that I perceive as adversity - doubts would paralyse me and I’d be unable to act. At the moments of trouble all you can count on is yourself - with all the subjective knowledge, worldviews and emotional baggage you have.

I can start doubting when we have conversation - like this one - which is exactly what it facilitated. I doubted and shifted my perspective many times in order to get your point and I feel wiser for it because I learned many interesting things. This is a mighty good exercise. And I am very grateful to you for that.

Probatio Diabolica. It's your time to objectively prove that this posture is inherently retarded. Start from objectively defining “retarded” and then “inherently”.

Ok, ok - I know you just admited it's "just" your worldview I am exploring.

Thank you BC for sharing with your view on all of this. In return, I will try to paint my delusion. And I have to say that I with many of your beliefs but for different reasons.

You see, I do believe that we are all in our subjective worlds. I do believe are perception is at least impaired (I am not really a fan of "objectivity is outside of any perception" school, because that means that no one knows what objectivity is... other than it is everything beyond our perception... or is it?) and our efforts to perceive anything are quite pathetic. But what I am interested in is something different than you. I am interested in how those poor senses are used to construct the worldviews, how those worldviews are used to build larger constructs which in turn are used to build even larger and larger ones. I am also interested in the process itself - how does it happen? How people become friends, and enemies based on their view, how they use the knowledge of each other and the environments to construct new ideas which have been beyond their reach just a second before. Why am I bothering with this? Because this is the human condition - to be weak and grow strong, to be blind and then reach enlightenment.

And to me things like judgments are the tools for all that. It can help me achieve the desired results within the framework of another larger delusion - the world as we collectively perceive (e.g. when I build a working plane I'll fly; the delusion of me shaking my arms fast and flying just won't work here).

I really don't think that judgment on its own is harmful or that it threaten any delusions you speak of - in order to be harmful it needs someone to act upon the information it provides and use it - either the person who makes the judgment or the one who perceives it. True, on account of our subjectivity we can misuse judgment and this may have fatal consequences. But should that alone mean we ought to shun judgment - be ashamed of it - because it potentially can harm (if we perceived it)? It’s a tool. Tool do not harm on their own.

Besides if I followed your logic to the letter I’d say that on their own opinions can’t do anything as long as the party who perceived them subjectively decided what they are, what qualities do they posses and what emotions do they evoke. Well, that’s at least an option - but we know how ineffective it is.

This little thing I approach differently. The entire point of reasoning is not to cut the delusions but to perceive them with the limited senses you have and take advantage of them to expand your perception (perception is not a delusion - again, subjective). And yes - you shouldn’t get too fanatical or stupid about one particular worldview because all of them have function - all of them have value - so limiting yourself to just one point of view is inviting idleness. That the function of delusions and value in the consensual reality may vary on application is merely a challenge for your knowledge, judgment and communication.

Yeah, those rants of ours are getting the better of us... I mean all of it could be just a delusion or something. Still, I've had my share of fun even if it was "getting involved into something that I don't know even exists". And I think I benefited a lot from it, even though I am guessing it annoyed the hell out of you. Thank you.

That won't work, nowadays they start making petitions to demand female representation: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/356467/fans-start-petition-over-aliens-female-snub/

Then the several loud fringe groups start complaining about how X is sexist because the armor has an indentation for primary sexual characteristics, how they don't want to be a princess, how they don't want to be rescued, how they don't want to be "shallow characters" but in-depth personas with wants and needs and just generally how they want things...

Not to forget that apparently every single TV show ever conceived seems to be "deeply sexist" if you go after some of the extreme nutcases, everything from Veronica Mars, The Powerpuff Girls, The Rugrats, Family Guy and fucking LEGO are evil plots of repression against women and out to get them.

(As is customary with people) even amongst them there's different opinions though.
For instance some seem to say that "Bayonetta is considered a great, empowering character, because blah..." while there's others writing the exact opposite: http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/bayonetta-and-the-male-gaze/
And for most Lara Croft seems to be "sexism" incarnate, while for others she was considered a great role model and strong/tough female character: http://fictionalprojects.com/2012/06/im-a-person-youre-a-person/

All the while everyone normal plays his/her games about italian plumbers, muscular space marines, latex-wearing superheroes, knights in armor wielding big-ass weapons, apes collecting bananas, genderless meat cubes, abstract shapes or mouse cursors and whatever else and doesn't give a shit. At most they'll complain about shit that actually matters like dumbification of games in general or the general lack of proper story writing or character personalization in games and the growing trend of fleecing customers of every last cent that big publishers seem to be competing in.

Boy, must like all the marketers of the entire world be on the wrong train then, if you actually stepped outside or turned on the TV you'd think that pretty people (of both gender) doing or wearing stuff actually sells that stuff, but they apparently got that all wrong... after all everyone knows how great games like Beyond Good & Evil, Mirror's Edge, Psychonauts etc. sold to people marketing story, emoshunal engagement and realistic characterization over boobs and violence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation:_Matriarchy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoZSmDgGEQE (warning: bargain bin tier opening level)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6P-FnNRLAE (watch this instead)

http://www.fryingbear.com/crimitism/181725_full.jpg
http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/236/177699_full.jpg
http://www.devisraad.com/op-m/01b.jpg
that last screenshot shows only what I can describe as a female bio-organic soldier using a heavily mutatated male body as a mech

- You're as likely to get rid of sexist games as you are likely to get rid of porn. Good luck with that.

Actually is currently more like 40%, raising as we go to different genres and art styles until we are talking over 50%, if I am not mixing it up with another percentage.



Mrowak

Supernigga, megaplease.

We are discussing Philosophy and Logic. Therefore, we use Objectivity as defined in the contexts of Philosophy and Logic.

And after how much you have mentioned the relative reality of consensual delusions I am sure you will enjoy this.

Let's assume it has been proven, for the sake of argument.

Even then, the only thing proven by what you just said is "believing in some subjective judgments AND acting upon them may lead to a change in (at the very least subjective) reality. It has been empirically proven that people believing in some subjective judgments can create things and develop/find new concepts whereas misjudgment may lead to (subjectively) undesirable consequences (e.g. death)."

Therefore,

1. We decide misjudgement MAY, thus it is implied MAY NOT, lead to death. Okay.
2. We decide judgement MAY, thus it is implied MAY NOT, lead people to create and develop shit. Okay.
3. We decide judgement followed by action MAY, thus it is implied MAY NOT, lead to change. Okay.

We thus conclude as a result of judgements and misjudgement stuff MAY, or MAY NOT, happen. Alright, that's some objective truth right there.

However, all other declarations are based on assumptions based on what MAY, or MAY NOT, happen. For example: Misjudgement MAY lead to death, okay. Which means it MAY NOT lead to death, and thus it MAY lead to something else. And the same happens with Judgement.

Therefore,

1. Judgement is beneficial? Nigga please.
2. Misjudgement is not beneficial? Nigga please.

Not to mention you are deciding, arbitrarily, that,

1. People dying is inherently bad.
2. People creating and developing shit is inherently good.
3. Change is inherently good.

Who you gonna call? Probatio Diabolica!

Also, define what is judgement and what is misjudgement. Because if you say, for example,

1. Judgement is that which is correct!
2. Misjudgement is that which is not correct!

I'm going to bring the hammer of uncertainty to bear. Without objectively understanding the whole of reality how can you judge correct from not correct? Nigga please.

In other words your entire proposition depends on a set of previous assumptions:

1. A is beneficial.
2. B is not beneficial.
3. Therefore, dongs.

And dispelling arguments from assumptions is -exactly- the purpose of Probatio Diabolica, as I explained in the previous post. Is A really beneficial? Is B really not benefically? Because if it turns out they MAY, or MAY NOT, be beneficial, in the case of A, and not beneficial, in the case of B, the entire argument goes to the ICU.

Anyway, I call Appeal to Probabilities. You are assuming that because something -may- happen, it -will- happen.

My bad, as I was saying "cut through the delusions" neither in the sense of dispersing them nor destroying them, but in the sense of going -through- them and seeing them as what they really are, delusions.

For one to use delusions as tools first one has to recognize "truth" as nothing but that, delusions to be used as tools. Which was the entire point of this discussion: By calling something objectively wrong you are buying into the delusions, and as the prettiest and most charming Devil's Advocate -ever- it is my duty to beat some sense into you.

I do believe there is a single -objective truth- though, or as close to objective truth as we can perceive. Uncertainty, itself, can be argued all the way from proposition to conclusion as being absolute, based on some of the very rules that are central to Logic:

1. It is impossible to demonstrate something does not exist.
2. It is impossible to experience anything other than by means of perception.

So you wander through the entire universe looking into every hole, turning every stone, researching every happening, analyzing every bit of information, studying everything that can be studied, etc. More so, you repeat such process through the entire multiverse. Alright? Yet you still can't dispel uncertainty because you can't demonstrate there's no layer of the universe, multiverse, or fundamental reality to which you can't enter, nor you can demonstrate there's nothing there that you can't perceive at all or that you perceptions of everything you studied are actually real, etc.

To talk about -truth- you have to make two assumptions: That there's truth to begin with, first, and that there is nothing more to find and thus you have found it, second. And then Probatio Diabolica happens.

Which is why we can safely consider all things which declare themselves to be truth as irrational. *shrug*

I am sorry if I get too hostile from time to time.

And yes, it was fun. And arguing helps me pierce through the mist inside my head and order my thoughts, which is a pretty rare state for me to be in.



And you have to give it to this discussion that it turned out to be a pretty fun inversion on the traditional roles of Witches and Mystery Fans.

I suspect that that the "male gaze" crowd is composed mostly of lesbians. Basically, to them guys looking at them are like to heterosexual guys.
Also, they aren't aware that male characters are designed to be attractive to women just as heterosexual guys aren't aware of it.
So, to them it's like female characters exist solely to attract the creepy male gaze while male characters are completely asexual and unattractive.

I'm really curious how you can do it. You are playing a game and after some hours your are absolutely sure that you feel no enjoyment, but you don't stop playing it and instead somehow you make yourself to feel enjoyment while playing this game. I'm curious how you can do it (without utilizing any techniques like autosuggestion during meditation or similar)(and don't tell me that you don't want to discuss taxing subjects, not in THIS thread).

This is a different case. In this case the enjoyment doesn't come just from the activity itself, but from doing this activity with someone you love.
And I am talking about making yourself to feel enjoyment while doing something that you've already tried, tried to like it but you felt no enjoyment.

Well, you know how it is. You just can't help writing those few words in the end...

Well, you know... Realists would disagree with your definition of objectivity.

It may also be that the objectives of our argument are completely different - that my victory does not exclude your victory. That in reality on of us is not playing chess (Philosophy) but another game altogether even though we are using the same pieces (logic) all the time.

Cat, you are forgetting what I stated before this paragraph:

Yes, I will never objectively prove that that kicking the child is bad. I will, however, prove that kicking him was bad within certain context - a subjective context. I assume that the boy is genuine, his crying is genuine, me derving the pleasure is genuine, then we can use the judgment. Logically this would be a fallacy but saying that boy isn't there, his cry is not a cry and my pleasure is not genuine.

The problem is we live in those contexts - whether we like it or not, so we might as well take advantage of the contexts we can perceive. For that, we need judgment, just like we need language (again, a very subjective construct) to communicate.

Oh this is good. This is awesome. This is exactly my line of thought. So I -MAY- be interacting with you, but I equally -MAY- be delusional at this point. If so, all my constructs for instance the need not to be a jerk -MAY- be not useful for me, so I -MAY- behave like that because it -MAY- not make a difference. However, because the conversation -MAY- be true I subjectively decided not to be a dick - out of concern that you -MIGHT- not like it or that it -MIGHT- slight you. It's a human condition to live in uncertainity, assumptions and lies but it is also to make out most of them. My personal stance here is - do / do not do something because it -MAY- make a difference. Otherwise I may just lie down and do nothing or act like jerks because - hell - why not?

Hey, hey, hey! That you perceive them as delusions does not mean all of them are delusions. You cannot objectively prove that all that you perceive is a delusion - you can only decide to treat everything as such. Or can you? Be warned, if you declare Probatio Diabolica here we will enter the realm of circular logic, and neither of us will come out of it alive.

Again: I abandoned the premise of sth being objectively "wrong" the moment we agreed on the definition of objectivity. In common, spoken English "objective" means - free of personal emotional charge. Yes, language itself is subjective... So again arguing by the means of language about objectivity may be simply creating an illusion of it. The same applies to judgment. Does it mean we should eschew them?

Welcome to the club.

And I am not here to dispel uncertainty. I am here to collect new delusions and create even better delusions with them which will perform their function in delusional contexts. Uncertainity is to my mind "good" exactly because it allows me for endless possibilities of doing exactly that. Whatever prevents me from doing so by claiming "This is the truth! Those who don't agree, you go to gas chambers!" (e.g. Nazi/Codex propaganda or marketing) is - in my personal opinion - "wrong".

Although I perceived some annoyance I also saw some fun... And I subjectively judged that the latter took precedence over the former on account of the simple fact in our consensual reality - we did continue our conversation.

Which is exactly my point - why it pays to listen to other "madmen". You -MAY- benefit from it. If you don't listen to them you certainly won't. I am glad that I did and I am happy that you think you profited as well in the same way. Thus, we are both victorious.

It has been a pleasure.

a) You can show off attractive people without being offensive
b) Those games weren't very good. They were kinda decent with unique hooks and even a sexist game like Torment shows that doesn't sell.

Which is why I said "as close to zero." I'm sure some basement dwellers will always be making crap, but it needs to be gone from the mainstream multi-million things. And it's not as if there hasn't been any progress at all regarding problematic elements in fiction during the last century. There should never be a point where we decide "Okay, this is good enough, let's stop trying."

I think that there should be mandatory multi-million dollar Fallout-like cRPGs. There was enough of that Call of Duty crap.

Mrowak

Originally I went paragraph per paragraph, answering every thingie and every stuffie. Then I read it again before posting and I noticed I was more or less channeling a different Black Cat.

So I'm not answering anything else you have to say on the topic, otherwise I'm going to get carried away and when the dust settles I'm going to have one less online friend.






BelisariuS.F

Self indoctrination, self hypnosis, clear punishments and rewards, brainwashing techniques, constant vigilance of the pattern of thought and emotion emerging in your mind as to destroy those forbidden before they can take root and become habit, etc, backed by a very strong will and a worldview that recognizes there's only victory or anihilation. I can go into detail in both the methods I personally use and the methods other use if you want, as long as we keep this purely theoretical. It is neither nice nor cuddly, and I don't want bleeding hearts jumping on the topic and telling me to find my heart.

Why am I not surprised? Well, it's a part of your charm I guess.

Yeah, the urge to get the final word can do that to people(look at my previous post). I guess we've just said everything there was to say and objectively proving me wrong won't change anything. However, I doubt I'd rage at all or anything. And to be perfectly honest, proving you wrong was never my goal.

See you in your LP threads.

You already know how it goes...

So it is only natural.

Feminists will love this game.

No stereotyping of women, because they are excluded altogether.

I LOVE ASS AND TITS AND I WILL DESTROY EVERYONE THAT MAKES THEM GO AWAY

Got just the game for you then


Enjoy being treated as a state machine

Who are those "we" you keep talking about?

Chill, dude, play some Rapelay like a man.

Lolwhat?

Oh right. Feminism.

I will now exercise the toxic hereditary of my privileged patriarchal position to enjoy me some space moose comics

come on ladies I don't suddenly hate you all when I don't get laid so why all this stuff jeez

The sad part about it all is that she's probably butt ugly and craving for attention and sex in her life, that is devoid of any love and careing because her pointless hatred has blinded her and turned away those that tried to get through to her.


What a waste.

raw emotion

What do you mean?

I double checked and I only used "we" in this sentence. Humanity as a collective, preferably. Mostly just feminists these days.

Annah and Grace are a neckbeard fantasy; one wants to die for him and the other wants to devote the rest of her life to finding him again despite neither even knowing him for very long. Ex-Obsidian employee Patrick K Mills has even said that Avellone will readily admit that he was "cribbing from the Harlequin playbook" when it came to writing their characters and romance fiction is very sexist. Makes sense considering Chris was a fat sheltered virgin when he wrote them, what would that kind of person possibly know about writing women aside from what he's seen in other shitty media?

Also shit like this:

What do you think i mean? Think about those ass montages of miranda in ME2 - do you think that pandering wasn't premeditated and done with the self-assured smug cynicism that 'this is all they care about, every thing else can be shit, but show a jiggly ass and they'll lap it up, add a few mod tools so they can play out their rape fantasies and BGE awards will rain'

I'm not even against sex or depictions of sex (am against 'romances'), but i'm against being expected to salivate over a pair of CGI boobs by default like in a fucking pavlovian experiment.