NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

[Spectacle]

when did this thread turn into Worst Thread Ever [occasionallyalways not safe for brain]?

Since Roguey, whose shitty trolling is extremely effective for some reason (e.g. PoE thread, The List of Incline thread) .

Ban roguey

 

[Jack]

when did this thread turn into Worst Thread Ever [occasionallyalways not safe for brain]?

someone mentioned something about gender

ever since then, this thread has been officially shit

 

[Zewp]

Get rid of that sexist garbage! You can see the top of her thighs FFS! Think of the children!

 

[Kitako]

 

[Average Manatee]

Get rid of that sexist garbage! You can see the top of her thighs FFS! Think of the children!

You're looking at her thighs? I'm going to have to ask you to please stop raping her with your mind.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I remember a time when Andhaira was made invisible to all users, and he would post stuff unaware that nobody could see it. I propose doing the same to Roguey. Plz make it happen DarkUnderlord

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Okay then:

50 years ago people were still measuring shirt length make sure it wasn't "indecent".

300 years ago a husband and wife kissing in public would get a public pillorying.

Seems we're moving backward...

Ah yes women having the freedom to choose how they dress and men being gross are the same because--

Here's an image that will hopefully help you understand, but probably not.

"And my desires happen to be the sort of immature and creepy ones some guys like."

...sex is a creepy thing that immature guys like?

Never change, tumblr.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Ok, on a totally serious note, did the SJW community ever make an effort to learn what women who actually play games want? As in, not the vocal minority organizing witchhunts on twitter, but the silent majority who presumably either don't know this is a thing or don't want to get involved. I'm curious personally, because on one hand you have these fundamentalist SJWs, and on the other women playing Scarlet Blade and enjoying having a sexy avatar. Would be nice to have some numbers, is what I'm saying.

From what I know a big part of "SJWs" that practice the game-slut-shaming is grognard material that for some weird reason don't get that DOTA, MMO and shit like that is plebeian crap with design intended not at representing any reality but at manipulating gamers into game addiction through sexual teasing.
But for some weird reason, instead on spending time and money on monocle wargames and simulators they waste time on this.

Anyway, these guys are so deluded that it's hilarious. It was never about degrading women, but about degrading the male players.

 

[tuluse]

I remember a time when Andhaira was made invisible to all users, and he would post stuff unaware that nobody could see it. I propose doing the same to Roguey. Plz make it happen DarkUnderlord

Roguey is a far better poster than 90% of the people who argue with her.

 

[Roguey]

I do enjoy how the pigs rolling around in their own filth can't even stand having one person challenge them while they're trying to circlejerk.

Ok, on a totally serious note, did the SJW community ever make an effort to learn what women who actually play games want? As in, not the vocal minority organizing witchhunts on twitter, but the silent majority who presumably either don't know this is a thing or don't want to get involved. I'm curious personally, because on one hand you have these fundamentalist SJWs, and on the other women playing Scarlet Blade and enjoying having a sexy avatar. Would be nice to have some numbers, is what I'm saying.

I don't see how it'd make a difference. There are women and men who play games and they find puerile character designs and writing gross.

The usual person knows the score:
http://twofoldsilence.diogenes-lamp.info/2012/07/art-and-appreciation_19.html

After growing up with a sculptor; working with video game artists, writers, and musicians, for over a decade; and living with a traditional painter for almost as long, I developed a maxim for how I would approach creative work: Do anything you want to do in life. Just don't expect anyone to pay you or respect you for it.

This, to me, is the razor. It's the distillation of any creative struggle with the audience: is the critical or financial approval of the audience worth making a creative choice you think is inferior? The audience may change: your co-workers, your boss, your client, your lover, your mother, the critics, the public. You give different audiences different weight, sometimes capriciously, sometimes rationally. Different issues may weigh on you more heavily than others. Sometimes it's easy to let go. Sometimes it hurts like hell. Sometimes you won't budge on principle. Sometimes you won't budge because fuck you, idiot.

We often use art and the authority of the artist (or the author, or the director, etc.) as an abstract shield to justify choices we make contrary to the desires of an audience. We make a choice, an audience complains, and sometimes -- all too often -- we say, "Sorry, but art." This is unproductive deflection. This is an absurd, conversation-ending non-argument. It is presented as a wall that no criticism can breach. How is the critic intended to respond?

Someone doesn't like how you portrayed a character. Someone doesn't like how you ended a story. Someone doesn't like how you framed your shots. "Art" as defense is not a response to criticism, it is a hollow rejection of criticism. It does not encourage dialogue, it does not promote introspection, and it does not (typically) ameliorate the audience's displeasure. At its worst, such a defense encourages non-topical arguments about the nature of art itself. These discussions, in which no parties are ever victorious, quickly spiral so far away from the actual point of criticism that they often never return.

When I see this, I ask myself: is this how authors and audiences should interact? I don't think so. I think both the author and the audience deserve, and can benefit, more from honest appraisals of why we make the choices we makes. Stop talking about "art". Stop talking about "entitlement". How does casting blame elevate and advance conversation about the work? This is about questioning our work, our choices, our relationship (or lack thereof) with the audience.

Ultimately, our works are our answers to those questions. Implicitly, what we give to our audience is indicative of our values. Everything that follows -- the sales, the reviews, the debates, the revisions, the re-releases -- should be viewed as tools for the authors and audience to reinforce or recalibrate those values for future work. Unless an author plans on quitting creative endeavors after the next project he or she completes, this process is something all of us will go through for life.

If you want to end a conversation, to cut off communication, it's easy enough to deflect criticism. Assuming you do make your work for an audience, you probably don't make it for all audiences. Sometimes, the fuck you, idiot instinct is the right one. If you don't want that audience to respect you or pay for your work, cut them loose; they're not worth your time and you're not worth theirs. But most of us can also accept a certain amount of dissatisfaction within our target audience. We make choices, some members of the audience are dissatisfied, but we still suspect they're the right choices. For those people, and for the rest of the audience, we have the ability to engage them, to sincerely explain our values and hear theirs.

All people engaged in a life of creative work have to fight battles against their shifting priorities. We all make trade-offs, one way or another. The more we illuminate the specific twists and turns of our own choices, and the struggles involved in making them, the more everyone can gain from the exchange.

Blizzard and Bioware are like pigs in a blanket.

 

[FeelTheRads]

There are women and men who play games and they find puerile character designs and writing gross.

And everything must be changed to adapt to them? Why exactly?
Why do they matter more than people who are fine with puerile design or people how find forced PC designs and writing gross?

Let's have a look at a random quote from In Strange Eons: Lovecraftian Numenera. By Monte Cook, which you'd probably call a fauxgressive, though, I guess?

H.P. Lovecraft was, unfortunately, a horrible
racist. Luckily, the Ninth World is far removed
from that kind of prejudice. Humans of the
Ninth World do not think in those terms—
they are all one race, essentially. (Lovecraft, of
course, was also classist, and the Ninth World
retains that vice to a great degree.)

What the fuck is this shit? A random paragraph, which had nothing to do with whatever else was on that page. A page in a book with suggestions for game masters on how to add Lovecraftian stuff to Numenera.
So, basically, he tells the people that it's bad to have racist characters in their game. Hurray for politically correctness, otherwise how could we have such important issues in gaming.

 

[Roguey]

And everything must be changed to adapt to them? Why exactly?

If you don't want that audience to respect you or pay for your work, cut them loose

Bioware cut most of the people itf loose; as a result, hardly anyone here respects them or pays for their work. Why should they change to adapt to you?

Why do they matter more than people who are fine with puerile design or people how find forced PC designs and writing gross?

Blizzard-guy said "We're not running for president and "we're not sending a message" suggesting he knows they're doing something unsavory. Yet he doesn't have the conviction to own up to it, which makes him look quite pathetic and insecure.

As for that second thing well

Let's have a look at a random quote from In Strange Eons: Lovecraftian Numenera. By Monte Cook, which you'd probably call a fauxgressive, though, I guess?

H.P. Lovecraft was, unfortunately, a horrible
racist. Luckily, the Ninth World is far removed
from that kind of prejudice. Humans of the
Ninth World do not think in those terms—
they are all one race, essentially. (Lovecraft, of
course, was also classist, and the Ninth World
retains that vice to a great degree.)

What the fuck is this shit? A random paragraph, which had nothing to do with whatever else was on that page. A page in a book with suggestions for game masters on how to add Lovecraftian stuff to Numenera.
So, basically, he tells the people that it's bad to have racist characters in their game. Hurray for politically correctness, otherwise how could we have such important issues in gaming.

It's not random, he's saying you shouldn't create Lovecraftian-themed campaigns that use racism because it doesn't exist in the setting.

 

[felipepepe]

Do anything you want to do in life. Just don't expect anyone to pay you or respect you for it.

Isn't this a clear free-pass for Blizzard to do whatever they want, and fuck those who don't respect their choices?

 

[Roguey]

We make a choice, an audience complains, and sometimes -- all too often -- we say, "Sorry, but we're not running for president. We're not sending a message." This is unproductive deflection. This is an absurd, conversation-ending non-argument. It is presented as a wall that no criticism can breach. How is the critic intended to respond?

Someone doesn't like how you portrayed a character. Someone doesn't like how you ended a story. Someone doesn't like how you framed your shots. "We're not running for president. We're not sending a message" as defense is not a response to criticism, it is a hollow rejection of criticism. It does not encourage dialogue, it does not promote introspection, and it does not (typically) ameliorate the audience's displeasure.

 

[Tehdagah]

There are women and men who play games and they find puerile character designs and writing gross. (...)

"puerile"

Like a woman who goes to the battlefield wearing a corset?

We make a choice, an audience complains, and sometimes -- all too often -- we say, "Sorry, but we're not running for president. We're not sending a message." This is unproductive deflection. This is an absurd, conversation-ending non-argument. It is presented as a wall that no criticism can breach. How is the critic intended to respond?

Someone doesn't like how you portrayed a character. Someone doesn't like how you ended a story. Someone doesn't like how you framed your shots. "We're not running for president. We're not sending a message" as defense is not a response to criticism, it is a hollow rejection of criticism. It does not encourage dialogue, it does not promote introspection, and it does not (typically) ameliorate the audience's displeasure.

Who said that you or another "SJW-like" are part of the Blizzard's audience?

And this shit isn't about displeasure. Politicians are trying to use the videogame media as a vehicle to push their agenda and you are one of their tools.

 

[Menckenstein]

We make a choice, an audience complains, and sometimes -- all too often -- we say, "Sorry, but we're not running for president. We're not sending a message." This is unproductive deflection. This is an absurd, conversation-ending non-argument. It is presented as a wall that no criticism can breach. How is the critic intended to respond?

Someone doesn't like how you portrayed a character. Someone doesn't like how you ended a story. Someone doesn't like how you framed your shots. "We're not running for president. We're not sending a message" as defense is not a response to criticism, it is a hollow rejection of criticism. It does not encourage dialogue, it does not promote introspection, and it does not (typically) ameliorate the audience's displeasure.

 

[Roguey]

PS hot off the presses http://www.heroesofthestorm.com/en-us/news/11751531/on-character-design

In a recent interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun, I responded poorly to a statement the interviewer made about over-sexualized character designs in games, and I want to apologize for that. This is a serious topic and I don’t want anyone to think that I, or anyone else at Blizzard, is insensitive about how we portray our characters.

It takes work to make compelling characters, but it’s important to take a step back to ensure that we’re not alienating our players. We have an amazing roster of heroes and we will always strive to make sure that everyone can have a hero that they identify with and feel powerful using. And at the end of the day, we all want the same thing. A great game where we can all have fun battling for glory and maybe some bragging rights.

On the stage at BlizzCon, I spoke about Heroes being a collaborative project, shaped by the passion, love, and support of gamers like you. We’re building this game together, we’re listening, and your thoughts are valued.

I would like to thank Rock, Paper, Shotgun as well as our players for their feedback on this important issue. We want to do better, so keep the feedback coming and thanks for the continued support. We’ve got some pretty amazing things in store for you and we’re looking forward to seeing you in the Storm.


Dustin Browder
Game Director, Heroes of the Storm

Victory, sweet, sweet victory.

 

[Brinko]

So all that happened is the interviewee admitted that some of the characters look like tramps?

Calling that victory is calling a pile of bricks a house.

 

[Tehdagah]

Sounds like a typical damage control. Happens all the time in Hollywood.

"In a recent interview with Rock, Paper, Shotgun, I responded poorly to a statement the interviewer made about over-sexualized character designs in games, and I want to apologize for that."

Exposed thighs and a cute outfit are "over-sexualized" now?

Meanwhile, feminists:

Spoiler

 

[felipepepe]

This is unproductive deflection. This is an absurd, conversation-ending non-argument. It is presented as a wall that no criticism can breach. How is the critic intended to respond?

"We're not running for president. We're not sending a message" as defense is not a response to criticism, it is a hollow rejection of criticism. It does not encourage dialogue, it does not promote introspection, and it does not (typically) ameliorate the audience's displeasure.

Yeah, they are completely dismissing any criticism, that's is clear. But the point is, why should they care? Again:

Do anything you want to do in life. Just don't expect anyone to pay you or respect you for it.

"Fuck criticism, I'll do what I want, even if not everyone will pay or respect me".

 

[Roguey]

He issued an apology so it turns out they do care.

 

[Menckenstein]

He issued an apology so it turns out they do care.

They achin' for that Borderhaus award.

 

[Machocruz]

Words. Nothing but words. I understand SJWs, feminists and critics think words mean anything, being all they have and are capable of, but let's see if they revamp any of the characters. Not that Blizzard need change anything. They could have put all the female characters in D3 in thongs and pasties and still would have sold at least 10 million copies. They are in the power position. They have an audience of millions of average video game consumers who just don't care about the issue, just want their fix of the next big thing.

 

[Sceptic]

Roguey is a far better poster than 90% of the people who argue with her.

She actually manages to be worse than some.

And those people used to include people like dnf.

Yeah.

 

[FeelTheRads]

So, wait "nonsexualized" doesn't mean less sales? But I thought sex sells? I thought naked women on the cover sell and it's exploitation?
Can never win with you fuckers.

And I can pretty much guarantee you that sexualized will get you more money than nonsexualized. The only extra people you'll get with nonsexualized are your deranged kind who only care about one thing and one thing only in a game: if it offends their sensitive feelings and actively look for reviews which focus on that. Normal people will be more attracted to what's sexualized. And thankfully there are more normal people than your kind.

It's not random, he's saying you shouldn't create Lovecraftian-themed campaigns that use racism because it doesn't exist in the setting.

Leaving alone the retarded "lol racism doesn't exist in this setting cuz it's bad but otherwise everything else exists"... he needs to specify that players shouldn't include racism? Why? Because otherwise they might and... what exactly would happen?

And who do you think cares enough to specifically make it an important subject in their game except racists? Do you think that retarded paragraph would stop them if they wanted to have racism in their game? Hint: it wouldn't. And they'd use racism as something good rather than as something bad. Of course, people are not allowed to use it at all, doesn't matter how and it what circumstance, cuz it doesn't exist lol.
Can never win you fuckers.