Moderator: JC Denton
by chb » 16 Jun 2009 11:10
Alex Kierkegaard wrote:YES, BECAUSE WE NEED TWO-BIT HOBAGS TO TELL US ABOUT MANHOOD. SHE HAS NOW BECOME AN AUTHORITY NOT ONLY ON VIDYAGEAMS -- BUT ALSO ON MANHOOD. AND I AM AN AUTHORITY ON WOMANHOOD -- JUST WATCH ME MENSTRUATE. AND MY DOG IS AN AUTHORITY ON THE HUMAN CONDITION. WOOF! WOOF!
by icycalm » 16 Jun 2009 15:09
LaserGun wrote:I would probably use "artdyke" myself lol
by Nervicide » 16 Jun 2009 15:21
by trickmasterG » 17 Jun 2009 02:12
by Marble » 22 Jun 2009 10:42
by zinger » 23 Jun 2009 02:01
The reason, therefore, that men are so easily seduced by virtual worlds whereas women are generally indifferent towards them (and in fact usually fail to even see the point in them), is because man's vital function, war, can be just as easily performed in virtual worlds as in the real one (and in fact even more easily there), whereas woman's vital function, childbirth, cannot be performed in them at all.
by DeadAurum » 23 Jun 2009 09:51
We've got way too many games designed by people whose primary hobby in life was Dungeons and Dragons or strategy board games -- yeah, yeah, I know, go ahead and add your obligatory comment defending the artistic value of these pursuits as if we aren't suffering from an excess of their influence.
Thanks to everyone for your contributions, thoughtful comments and participation in the discussion! You guys are the best, and all of you are cleverer by far than one of me.
Another element these games --and this trailer -- share is that all of the gameplay is very visual and very kinetic. Reflecting on his own childhood, Ueda has said he was "interested in things that moved."
by Bradford » 23 Jun 2009 16:15
zinger wrote:The reason, therefore, that men are so easily seduced by virtual worlds whereas women are generally indifferent towards them (and in fact usually fail to even see the point in them), is because man's vital function, war, can be just as easily performed in virtual worlds as in the real one (and in fact even more easily there), whereas woman's vital function, childbirth, cannot be performed in them at all.
I guess nursing a baby is about as easy to simulate in a game as war is (The Sims?). Wouldn't that be seducing enough? Care to elaborate?
by icycalm » 23 Jun 2009 18:22
zinger wrote:I guess nursing a baby is about as easy to simulate in a game as war is (The Sims?). Wouldn't that be seducing enough? Care to elaborate?
Bradford wrote:I took Icy to be using the term "war" broadly (i.e., synonymous with the concept of conflict);
Bradford wrote:thus, war is not being simulated in video games, it is real.
Bradford wrote:Therefore, real war can occur in a simulated place.
Bradford wrote:A simulation of childbirth could perhaps be experienced in a virtual place, but for obvious reasons, a real childbirth cannot.
by icycalm » 23 Jun 2009 18:33
Nervicide wrote:Did this article attract the number of hits you thought it would? or did it surpass your expectations? Links to it are surely spreading like wildfire as we speak.
A few weeks ago I was linked to this blog entry on Insomnia. At first, I felt compelled to write a response to it, but so ridiculous was the article that I couldn’t come up with anything beyond “What. The. Hell?!”… because how exactly are you meant to respond to such irrational, misogynistic vitriol?
I was able to ignore it for the most part because it was all too crazy for me to take seriously, but it kept being brought up in conversations that I had with friends and other game writers. The people I spoke with all voiced their frustrations at the piece not so much because they disagreed with the ideas in Kierkegaard’s rant, but because he did it in a way that now makes it impossible for anyone to criticise a female game writer without being associated with his hideous diatribe.
There are valid criticisms to be made about everyone’s writing, and there are plenty that can be made about the writing of many of the women who work in the industry. Not everyone is going to like Leigh Alexander’s work; not everyone is going to be a fan of Tracey John, and there will be people who don’t like Nadia Oxford’s writing. There will be people who find me intolerable. I think all writers should be kept in check and be called out when they’re doing a particularly bad job, but Kierkegaard’s method isn’t the right way to do it. If anything, he has been completely counter-productive because now, anyone who has legitimate criticisms of well-known female writers like Leigh Alexander won’t be able to voice their thoughts without conjuring thoughts of Kierkegaard’s needlessly abusive and highly sexist opinion piece.
So that’s one small step forward for Insomnia in their page hits for this month, and one giant leap back for games writing. Thanks, dude. You’ve ruined it for everyone.
by icycalm » 23 Jun 2009 18:57
trickmasterG wrote:Icy, you say at the end of your article that because of women's inherent disinterest in video games they will be unable as a group to follow us into the future of digital realms.
by Nervicide » 23 Jun 2009 21:49
icycalm wrote:Not really. I mean many people have read it, including a great percentage of the journ-lol-list crowd, but they are all doing their best to arrest my inevitable rise to fame.
zerolightseeds wrote:A few weeks ago I was linked to this blog entry on Insomnia.
by icycalm » 07 Jul 2009 18:55
Infinite Lives wrote:Impressed only by female bylines who, in the course of their writings, convincingly conceal their sex, Kierkegaard (no, not that one) ascribes the "surge" of female games writers to the nerdy male hormones that employ (read: pursue) them. The fairer sex's aversion to big-tittied warmongers, in the meantime, can be chalked up to her biological imperative to birth children -- the "pussy" made literal and metaphorical, apparently.
by Pedestrian » 10 Jul 2009 21:03
by icycalm » 11 Jul 2009 21:59
by icycalm » 11 Jul 2009 22:01
Pedestrian wrote:The goals of war are destruction, domination and mastery. These things are easily possible in games, and have been for some time.
Pedestrian wrote:The goal of childbirth is to create something which has the potential to be as complex, or more complex, than yourself.
by icycalm » 11 Jul 2009 23:32
Jean Baudrillard wrote:Better than those women who climax are those who give the impression of climaxing, but maintain a sort of distance and virginity beneath the pretence of pleasure, for they oblige us with the offer of rape.
by Beakman » 27 Jul 2009 21:51
by NighAligned » 17 Aug 2009 03:50
Nietzsche wrote:To go wrong on the fundamental problem of "man and woman," to deny the most abysmal antagonism between them and the necessity of an eternally hostile tension, to dream perhaps of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and obligations—that is a typical sign of shallowness, and a thinker who has proved shallow in this dangerous place—shallow in his instinct—may be considered altogether suspicious, even more—betrayed, exposed: probably he will be too "short" for all fundamental problems of life, of the life yet to come, too, and incapable of attaining any depth.