realkman666: I'm offended? :(

F4LL0UT: I'm sure you're offended by *something*.

Decatonkeil: There is misogyny in games and in a lot of geek culture, and I care.

realkman666: How dare you imply that? I won't stand here and let you say this about me. YOU TAKE IT BACK!

F4LL0UT: There isn't.
F4LL0UT: Point proven?

NWN_babayaga: Anitas thinking is insane, period. Masculinity (our nature btw.) leads to muh soggy knees and that leads to violence or violence leads to blah blah... and because of that she has to destroy masculinity in games. Wow, thats a logic!
I mean, insane may be a bit off but surely it sounds like a thought of a madman to me. To question masculinity... is like you tell the world that our civilisation is an EPIC fail. The man of the earth build it and all the nice things these people use are being made my man. And yet they "hate" it... ?

Twitter = made my man
computers = made by man
television = made by man
money = made my man
buildings = made by man

we can add all the things we have achieved to the list and in the end these people tell you how bad man are! So i think that people like Anita need help and not a computer!
Totaly Off topic but so is Anita imo whenever someone brings her up. She is a political tool thats all!

toxicTom: I think this is a rather short sighted argument, because for the radical feminists this just proves how women are kept out the loop. They would invent great things too, if the evil patriarchy would only let them. See what I'm doing? I'm turning your argument against yourself.

F4LL0UT: There isn't.

Decatonkeil: She CAN be wrong about what causes this violence. But if she honestly believes that there is a correlation between a culture that glamorizes violence and that tells boys or men that solving problems with violence, with a gun is solving problems "like a real man"... then how is it "her agenda" to try and have people "realize this conclusion" she's got to (and I repeat, she may be wrong, but that's how she sees it) if it saves lives. I'd have gun control, I'd have my way in my country, if I thought it was the safe way, the way we got less killings or zero killings. How would that be "an agenda"? There's such a thing like gun manufacturers, people who want guns sold because it's their business. There's such a thing is as fearmongerers, and they aren't necesarilly people who want to cause an alarm about a problem that doesn't exist, but people who want social insecurity to be the state of things so that they can sell you a solution (and guess what, the solution that they sell you is a lot of times a gun, arming yourself, when it's not renouncing to a lot of your rights to privacy, association...). There is not such a thing as a "manufacturer of not-guns" (well, there are lots of manufacturers of things that are not guns XD), so how would wanting more gun control and opinion-makers that don't tell people violence and machismo are the right way to go... translate into an economic gain? Can you call that an agenda?

toxicTom: As for games, there are games like Rapelay and Premium Play Darkness (in Japan, but they also have a western audience, and we have Custer's Revenge...). I don't think I could say there's no misogyny in those with a clear conscience.

toxicTom: If games like these show violence, crime, and yes hostility towards women (think of the guy getting rid of his wife in GTA3), it's just that - they show it. The comment is created in your head. It doesn't mean the game or the makers love violence and crime and really hate women.

toxicTom: I would like some geek culture examples please.

charmer: Look, I've said it repeatedly. If games have (negative) effects, they are almost always just a piece in a puzzle if it comes to unravelling the effect of a certain outcome.

It's about proportionality - the more time you spend doing a certain activity, the more that activity can account for having effect on what you do. Therefore, if someone has a bad temper and starts heavily indulging in a certain activity that does not make the bad temper go away but aggravates its effect for the worse, we can conclude that the activity contributed noticeably to whatever that person eventually commits.

If that activity happens to be playing violent games, you cannot reasonably discount their effect, even if another activity could have led to the same result.

So whether it is a sheltered life, holding grudges, or having a bad temper, if you "feed" it with 40 hours of violent gameplay a week, the effect can hardly be overlooked.

But as I said, as with domestic violence, detailed background information (about how much time who spends playing games) is not readily available when something bad happens. That makes it a tricky issue. charmer: Haha. The real reason is two-fold. Typically, you don't spend nearly as much time playing non-violent non-action games, which is definitely a good thing in general. Plus, non-violent games do not provide as much power fantasy when you would decide between life and death in a trivialized way, which makes a huge difference as well.
Here's one interesting case: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyBPp6TFx54 (back to Stanford) charmer: In other words, nothing worth mentioning, really. Being able to take pleasure from yet another level of psychopathy does not really count as a positive thing to me.

I stopped playing violent games years ago with the exception of a single run through Spec Ops: the Line; that game was unique and profound in its message and its gameplay was engaging but not really fun.

Since then I discovered a lot of other different genres, a lot of good old games etc., and going back to spend hours running around, mindlessly shooting stuff seems to me like a complete waste of time and energy.
Now I enjoy real fun, not that juvenile power-and-thrill thing from years before. Try it, it does not hurt ;)

charmer: Haha, here you go, knock yourself out : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK2tx58U1bc

urknighterrant: GOG has every right to refuse to pick up any title for any reason and they don't need to offer any reason at all, much less press some social agenda. If they want to say, "We find it in bad taste" that's more than they needed to say and it's a valid reason.

From where I sit if anyone stomps out of the GoG community in a fit of pique over GOG not picking up the POS game it's no loss, no foul. It's good riddance really.

urknighterrant: GOG has every right to refuse to pick up any title for any reason and they don't need to offer any reason at all, much less press some social agenda. If they want to say, "We find it in bad taste" that's more than they needed to say and it's a valid reason.

From where I sit if anyone stomps out of the GoG community in a fit of pique over GOG not picking up the POS game it's no loss, no foul. It's good riddance really.