I have a question about Gamergate

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD You keep going back to me having a problem with people critiquing rather than the strength of their critique. For the last time: I have no problem with people analyzing art through any lens they like, but with industry context they have to be aware that not all opinions are valued equally. Please read my Camero review scenario again where I explain more about the idea of legit, informed opinions vs people who miss the point.

That is a redundant statement. If your opinion is not valued then no one listens or responds to it. This is simple. That's why none of us read or watch everything written or recorded about the stuff we like. This is absolutely redundant.

However, Anita Sarkeesian to name one, is only a public persona now because of the response to her criticisms. So therefore what she says has been made valid by the debate that has ensued.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD None but the most strident would out and say they want something banned. Few people wanna be 'that guy'. So I'll just ask you directly: Were you king of the earth, able to pass or deny anything; does GTA5 as it is right now exist? Does Dead or Alive 5 exist? Does Mortal Kombat exist?

Considering that I've played GTA and Mortal Kombat since both original games were released, it would be a bit ludicrous for me to have them banned. I've loved both games over the years in their various iterations. But this is not to say that when a game like GTA V throws away the sharply-observed satire of previous incarnations, and almost becomes a version of what it used to parody, that I cannot point this out, nor that it should not be pointed out by critics. GTA IV just bored me, GTA V just turned me off single player with that segment (though I may pick it up again since my internet connection is so bad here to make online play basically impossible bar some Worms 2).

Trying to paint me as a prude is wide of the mark, rather than just someone who is dismayed by artistic laziness and crassness.

In regards to the other thread, that's a side issue. Since I've had to do a bit of work on child protection and recognising/preventing abuse, I'm coming to it from that angle. What I will say is that The Rogerer made the best point in that thread, in that the prosecutors and police involved have to look at all child porn and categorise it that they bring to court for any case, so it is not a case of prudes not understanding something. They have to sit through all that shit and go home to their families afterwards. If they brought that case and achieved a conviction, I would tend to believe they had a reason to do so because what they had seen demonstrated a possible threat to the public.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto However, Anita Sarkeesian to name one, is only a public persona now because of the response to her criticisms. So therefore what she says has been made valid by the debate that has ensued.

lol right

I wonder if you're consistent about this in other areas. "Backlash dignifies uninformed opinions."

Considering that I've played GTA and Mortal Kombat since both original games were released, it would be a bit ludicrous for me to have them banned. I've loved both games over the years in their various iterations. But this is not to say that when a game like GTA V throws away the sharply-observed satire of previous incarnations, and almost becomes a version of what it used to parody, that I cannot point this out, nor that it should not be pointed out by critics. GTA IV just bored me, GTA V just turned me off single player with that segment (though I may pick it up again since my internet connection is so bad here to make online play basically impossible bar some Worms 2).

So you are fine with GTA5 being out there? We're agreeing on that?

Trying to paint me as a prude is wide of the mark, rather than just someone who is dismayed by artistic laziness and crassness.

You call it whatever you like, I'm just worried that you feel it should change on your terms when you're not the creator.

In regards to the other thread, that's a side issue. Since I've had to do a bit of work on child protection and recognising/preventing abuse, I'm coming to it from that angle. What I will say is that The Rogerer made the best point in that thread, in that the prosecutors and police involved have to look at all child porn and categorise it that they bring to court for any case, so it is not a case of prudes not understanding something. They have to sit through all that shit and go home to their families afterwards. If they brought that case and achieved a conviction, I would tend to believe they had a reason to do so because what they had seen demonstrated a possible threat to the public.

I wish I was still that optimistic about our justice system.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD lol right I wonder if you're consistent about this in other areas. "Backlash dignifies uninformed opinions."

She would be a nobody if not for the reaction of gamers. This much is true.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD So you are fine with GTA5 being out there? We're agreeing on that?

In what way could I be clearer? I'd prefer it if it was a more enjoyable game since I spent money on it.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD You call it whatever you like, I'm just worried that you feel it should change on your terms when you're not the creator.

I hope you don't lose any sleep over it. I wonder, though, why you feel the criticism we've debating here is any less valid than debating criticism of other artistic decisions, such as plotting, dialogue etc.? It's almost as if you are arguing criticism should not exist.

Originally Posted by Kalyx triaD I wish I was still that optimistic about our justice system.

The case discussed in that thread took place in England so it's not your justice system.

[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by El Capitano Gatisto She would be a nobody if not for the reaction of gamers. This much is true.

It is, but that says nothing of her rhetoric's validity.

I'd prefer it if it was a more enjoyable game since I spent money on it.

You mean you're gonna make sure it's enjoyable before you spend money.

I wonder, though, why you feel the criticism we've debating here is any less valid than debating criticism of other artistic decisions, such as plotting, dialogue etc.? It's almost as if you are arguing criticism should not exist.

I'm starting to think you're trolling me with this, after me saying multiple times criticism is fine.

Thoughts on plot and dialogue is perfectly fine, as they are elements the writer is giving unto you. What's I've been arguing is how certain art should be judged on the merits it sets out for, not what the reviewer posits onto it.

Consider that you've been arguing for a freedom of critique beyond freedom the art they're reviewing.

The case discussed in that thread took place in England so it's not your justice system.

I concede.