Thinking about giving a 3DS a spin. What's big on it that wasn't around 3 years ago when I almost bought a 3DS? I know Dual Destinies, and that will be the top of my list, but otherwise I'm completely ignorant.
It's pretty cool that it looks like it manages to be a good throwback without deliberately emulating the early 90s FPS style. I've been kind of ambivalent towards a lot of those games lately, because even Serious Sam at times tends to read like a superficial copy of those rather than a deliberately thought out modern equivalent.
It's also pretty cool that there are colors other than pitch black.
Count me in on the no lives brigade. They were pretty much pointless as soon as even the 2D titles started having save systems that kept track of them, but when essentially starting burying you under the things in lieu of competent difficulty they almost seem to exist purely to justify collecting them. It's a pretty outdated concept anyway, and really has been ever since the PSX-era 3D platformers took hold.
Sonic Team has done a pretty good job continuing the justification for including point tallies, but I don't think a similar such thing can be done for lives.
Let's think about how long you want to stay here as a member if you can't discuss a topic without being an asshole to people about it. Keep thinking about it for any future posts you want to make in this topic. I let it go when you did the same thing in your OP because it wasn't actually targeted at anyone, but if you can't actually counter criticism without resorting to this garbage and proving exactly why discourse on the topic is impossible you might be better off starting a blog instead.
With that out of the way: Nope. I think she was intelligent enough to know that something that constantly fucking happens on YouTube and 4Chan and reddit to anyone remotely famous about something remotely popular was going to happen to her when she directly criticized something that YouTube and 4Chan and reddit hold in high regard. And that when she made a video asking for money to do a series of videos criticizing something that YouTube and 4Chan and reddit hold in high regard on YouTube, she was inevitably (not hypothetically) going to get a lot of truly repugnant and undeserved shit for doing so. And it was inevitably going to launch the attention she got into the stratosphere by the time she actually started making the videos, because the fact that she was getting death threats and the like in response to the mere implication of sexism was inevitably going to be picked up by regular media. It's not right by any stretch to have to deal with that shit simply because she's targeting something people without socialability like, but there's no fucking way that she went into this simply oblivious to the fact that what has been happening to her has happened. I didn't give a shit about GamerGate when it was happening. I immediately recognized it for the Men's Rights bullshit masquerading as an ethics debate that it was, and I ignored it from then on. I didn't give a shit about GamerGate when it was tenuously linked to Sarkeesian by the people going after Quinn to tear open old wounds and redraw battlelines about Feminist Frequency. I don't give a shit about GamerGate now. I'm sure Jimmy Kimmel does at the moment too, and all he said was that he didn't understand why people watch Let's Plays. I just started the other day getting into watching JonTron. After a couple years of watching Brutalmoose and LGR and PuR, who are all comparatively unknown people in the same sort of field, it was impressive that one person could garner so much obscenely hateful and violent responses just for talking about shitty PSX games and occasionally being slow about it. Once again, it's a pretty shitt state of affairs, but not at all one unique to Sarkeesian in the slightest; and Google themselves even spent a year trying to do something about it before giving up.
I refer back to this: Since it's relevant to what you're doing now.
You're not going to get new people talking about something you want discussed if the only people you tell are the same people you've always told. She sure would have looked silly if this was the one time someone being systematically abused spread around social media like wildfire and didn't draw massive attention to whatever she was doing that led to it.
Wait. Yes you did. Your argument was just a degree of separation from the infamous "kill hookers for points" and "murder simulator" silliness levied by clueless politicians every few years, and wasn't any more logically sound either. Sarkeesian claimed that a game was designed to take amusement from knocking out/killing strippers and dragging their bodies around, which would be fine of not for the clear implication (either from her or just you paraphrasing her since I don't know her exact wording) that the amusement was intended to be higher than that of just killing dudes and doing the same or whatever. I haven't played that specific Hitman game, but if it is anything like the other games I have played the game actively rewards you far more if you just leave everyone the fuck alone and kill the one person the mission wants dead; so I suspect the base criticism even before woman factor into the equation (that there is an unstated goal to cause any sort of mayhem) is false. You claimed that such a response to Sarkeesian is intellectually dishonest simply because the game doesn't instantly end if you do so because some other specific part of a specific version of a specific game in a completely different genre does do so; and then doubled down to say that the lack of an instant failure condition for killing someone in a game literally about assassinating people was not only proof that what Sarkeesian said was true but was deliberately designed in a way that made it true. It's an absurd train of logic to follow, and could be applied to even the most innocuous games that happen to share some similarity.
The game is problematic in the sense that it is a piece of interactive entertainment that tasks you with creatively murdering people for financial gain and rewards you the better you do it. That's a tough thing for some people to swallow, and it really is understandable that people can object to it on a basic level. The game is not really more problematic because it also lets you murder people who aren't related to the people you're supposed to be murdering; and there's no logical way it can be called even more problematic because the random people you might be able to murder happen to be strippers.
Yep: a person compared to a straw image; a sham.a sham argument set up to be defeated.Looks about right, since: Here's what I said:
Here's the kind of things you keep claiming I really meant: It isn't news that YouTube users act like they have been acting towards Sarkeesian. It isn't news that 4Chan users act like they have been acting towards Sarkeesian. It isn't news that video gaming cliques respond and react very badly to any perceived outsider calling negatives against them. It isn't news that these things can form a perfect storm and go after specific people. It also wasn't news that those things happened way back in 2012 when the Kickstarter campaign happened, since just a few months earlier there was a nasty fallout where the same thing occurred during a PR campaign for a Capcom game. There's no "orchestrating" involved to get people to completely flip the fuck out at you when you say bad things about popular videogames on YouTube; and there's no real manipulation involved either since Sarkeesian herself has been extremely low key in her responses to her treatment. My only point was that she had to have gone into her video series knowing that it would cause blowback against her because of the perfect combination of her where she expressed them, how she expressed them and what they were. Not that it was okay that there was. You were the one who tried to spin that into the absurd conclusion that Sarkeesian somehow had to trick a particularly nasty group of people into getting angry and attacking her when they internalized her criticism of something they held dear.
And again, what I said:
And here's the arguments you were assigning to me: Not only were you the one who kept claiming I was taking her actions to spread discussion about the topic in a negative light, but you were the one who kept claiming that I was saying she was doing it for selfish reasons. You immediately assumed that I thought she was in it for money. After that you tried claiming that I thought she was trying to rise her star power. Now you've claimed that I think she's just after some sort of vague "personal gain"; which is pretty strange since I would have thought that outright stating that she was trying to spread her views about the treatment of women in games would show that I thought she was pretty selfless. My only point was that I believed she was angling for the controversy that was obviously going to occur to get more people talking about a subject she wanted discussed. Not that she was in the wrong for doing so, since it is obviously a thing that needs to be discussed since she did get the reaction she got. You were the one who tried to spin that into the absurd conclusion that I thought Sarkeesian was trying to get people to talk about her or give her money or make her a celebrity or whatever the fuck "personal gain" you were talking about.
No you didn't. Dismissing something as false, essentially out of hand, is not pointing out how poor of a defense something is. It can't be both things; nor do I think she's actually brought discourse to the subject. I think she tried to, certainly, but it has blown up spectacularly into nothing more than pro and anti Sarkeesian instead of anything about the actual thing she wanted people talking about. In that respect, I believe she made a major miscalculation in how she went about doing her videos; though that miscalculation has shown that there is indeed a problem regardless, if not the one she was angling for. I didn't say that. I said that her viewpoint of what she says seems narrow in scope, but she still comments on things that are outside that scope anyway. That's about the opposite of "she's not particularly interested in feminism outside her realm." That's not even remotely relevant to this thread or anything said in it. It doesn't "prove" anything. If you would take pause from proving exactly why any discourse about her so difficult, you would note that my very first post I specifically said "that I think she was banking on."
I think she saw what happens when people on YouTube (or, really, the internet in general) gain any form of notoriety. I think she realized that YouTube itself shares a lot of the same demographic groups that the videogame industry does. I think she realized in advance that if she talked about how videogames could improve their portrayals of women on YouTube that it would blow up humongously. I think she deliberately used that to her advantage to try and spread her views about a topic that she wanted people to about. I think she took the confrontational style she uses against hugely popular games because she knew it would cause reactions against her that would inherently legitimize her viewpoints while also spreading them. I even think that her disabling comments on her videos was an attempt to cultivate talking points on places with higher levels of discourse than idiots on YouTube. And I think that all of this, coupled with her occasional fast and loose fact checking and horrible release schedule after the Patreon thing, has caused the entire thing to mutate into something completely different than what she intended. I think all of those things are substantially more likely than she just accidentally stumbled across humongous amounts of hateful personal criticism and threats against her that merely happened to catapult her to celebrity status which as a result coincidentally brought her video series to the (sorta) public eye. The main criticism against her approach that I don't think has any merit is the idea that she's trying to fleece people financially or intentionally draw out her release schedule for maximum effect. I believe she simply underestimated how much of an undertaking she was doing, and it acted to draw the battle lines deeper. It doesn't require any mastery of anything to see that people who evoke controversy will get more attention than people who don't. It doesn't require any mastery of anything to know that YouTube is an excellent way to generate fabricated controversy when you talk even slightly negatively about something popular in the average YouTube user's demographic. It doesn't require any mastery of anything to know that harassment inspires sympathy to your views irrelevant of what they actually are. That's not really a statement that you can so easily put "simple as" on top of. It would help immensely if you didn't resort to strawman arguments so often. That's the second time you've done so over this exact point, nevermind all the ones above, and it's growing tiring. I didn't say she was out for financial gain, and I didn't say she was out for publicity.. That's one of the reasons. Failure of intellectual discourse isn't always the fault of a single party. Bigots certainly use legitimate criticism to push bigotry; but people seeking social change also use the existence of bigotry to dismiss any criticism of their views.
Because her criticism, ignoring the times where she does deliberately take things out of context or applies criticism that simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny, is generally superficial at best and just kinda dumb at worst. And it ties into how, particularly notable when she comments on topics other than gaming, she also seems to have an extremely narrow (meaning white and middle classed living in a first world nation) point of view of what feminism means.
It suits her much more to be viewed as an extremely controversial and outspoken critic of the games industry and its practices as it pertains to storytelling than it does to be viewed as someone who is making a vblog about something; even if the controversy is largely fabricated. There are hundreds of thousands of people who do that every day on YouTube and no one gives a shit; but mass controversy spreads her viewpoint far more than casual indifference would, and I find it very hard to believe that Sarkeesian is as smart as she clearly is but just sort of stumbled into it. Just as much as she's been demonized for what she's doing she's also been deified for it; but either one will do to spread her views which is what she wanted in the first place. There is also a humongous criticism buffer provided to what she says because of how she's been treated, which you've done a fantastic job exemplifying in the OP, that makes what she says extremely hard to actually debate. To debate the merits of the things she says, you already have to put humongous qualifiers on your own statements that have just as much of a chance at blowing up in your face. You already have to argue against people who act as her views are beyond reproach, but now you have the burden of doing so while trying to prove that you are not a misogynist for taking issue with something she said. You already have to argue with the qualifier that she has been treated extremely badly by people on the internet, and that you are not aligned with that group attacking her personally for doing so. There is absolutely a viewpoint, and it seems to be a pretty common one, that because people hate and dismiss her out of hand and go so far out of their way to attack her personally, what she is saying must be true. And that's before we even get into GamerGate and the stupidity it tacked onto the issue.
It's an extremely common tactic in modern political discourse, particularly as it pertains to similar social and cultural movements. You even see it on SSMB. Attempt to argue that police actions in a specific black death were justified? Your comments automatically carry an undercurrent of racism. Attempt to argue about issues trangender people face that cisgender people don't? You automatically must not care about the sky high suicide rates faced by the transgendered community. That's the exact behavior that I think the "SJW" epithet actually has its roots in before it was co-opted to mean "people who get offended by things".
Sarkeesian is a hack, but YouTube reacting to her in YouTube's stereotypical way of reacting to things was the exact response that I think she was banking on. In that respect she is extremely clever.
Also feel the need to point out that these are fucking atrocious comparisons: You're kidding yourself if you think Jack Thompson and Don Mattrick didn't get way more shit than Sarkeesian ever did or likely ever will; and Phil Fish was probably destined to be a one-hit-wonder anyway even if he hadn't rage quit the indie games scene after a twitter flameout. Even based on the rather low standards of Sarkeesian's YouTube/4Chan infamy he's completely inconsequential.