Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Games Discussion/What Are You Playing?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rayvin Miyu
    started a topic Games Discussion/What Are You Playing?

    Games Discussion/What Are You Playing?

    ...so...yeah, okay, I made the thread. ...because games. All kinds of games...yep.


    Still currently playing: World of Warcraft, Guild Wars 2, TERA, DC Universe Online, and a few others.... Mainly focusing on WoW since me and the hubby started up our accounts again together.

    I've also broke down and decided to try Pangya.
    Last edited by Rayvin Miyu; 11-06-2013, 09:05 PM.

  • nofather
    replied
    Has anyone played Age of Wonders: Planetfall, and liked it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Nyrufa
    replied
    Just bought the Mana Collection today from the Nintendo E-Shop.

    Time to play Trials of Mana (legally) for the first time!

    Leave a comment:


  • HardestadtTheEvenYounger
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    The art director did claim that she thinks the person is sexy, and she said that the ad was supposed to be an example of how corporations in 2077 objectify people, which is what you fight against as the protagonist. Something in there isn’t tracking. If we take at face value the claim that it’s an example of what you’re fighting against, then saying you think it’s sexy is not a good look. At best it makes her come off like a chaser.


    The trans woman, first of all, not “the trans.” Let’s not remove the personhood from the language we use to describe trans people, hm?

    So, your argument is that the art director was trying to say that the woman in the ad is sexy, but the way she is depicted in the ad is not? I don’t think that’s clear from her messaging. And, more importantly, if that’s what she’s trying to say, she’s fundamentally misunderstanding why the ad is an issue. If that’s the case, she’s the one defending something that isn’t under attack, and you’re... what, defending her right to do so?
    Hardly not under attack considering that the post I originally responded to was a comment on the supposed connection between the "this model is sexy" comment and the objectifying nature of the ad as if one stemmed from the other.
    As I stated before, the need that the art director felt to reaffirm that she wasn't making light of the gender non-conforming nature of the model portrayed by calling her sexy was most likely due to not wanting the matter to blow out of proportion in social media. As it is, what she said was:

    “Personally, for me, this person is sexy,” Redesiuk said. “I like how this person looks."

    She speaks in general terms here, she doesn't say "I like how this person looks here, in this ad." She further reaffirms this by claiming that the ad itself is exploitative and part of the corruption inherent to these cyberpunk corporations.
    In fact, I wouldn't say that she is defending anything so much as clarifying that if you feel disgusted by the ad, that is the point.










    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
    "“It’s intentionally objectification!” and “I think it’s sexy!” cannot both be virtues, like the art director says.
    The art director did claim that she thinks the person is sexy, and she said that the ad was supposed to be an example of how corporations in 2077 objectify people, which is what you fight against as the protagonist. Something in there isn’t tracking. If we take at face value the claim that it’s an example of what you’re fighting against, then saying you think it’s sexy is not a good look. At best it makes her come off like a chaser.

    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
    This is what Remi said and what I originally replied to. Reading this, my first impression was that she was claiming that the art director said that the objectification of the model was a virtue which is incorrect and thus I argued against it.
    If, instead, Remi meant that you cannot condemn objectification as bad while saying that it is sexy, then my reply at the top of this page applies. The art director never compliments the ad itself, only the trans depicted in it.
    The trans woman, first of all, not “the trans.” Let’s not remove the personhood from the language we use to describe trans people, hm?

    So, your argument is that the art director was trying to say that the woman in the ad is sexy, but the way she is depicted in the ad is not? I don’t think that’s clear from her messaging. And, more importantly, if that’s what she’s trying to say, she’s fundamentally misunderstanding why the ad is an issue. If that’s the case, she’s the one defending something that isn’t under attack, and you’re... what, defending her right to do so?

    Leave a comment:


  • HardestadtTheEvenYounger
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    So you’re defending something no one is attacking?
    "“It’s intentionally objectification!” and “I think it’s sexy!” cannot both be virtues, like the art director says. "

    This is what Remi said and what I originally replied to. Reading this, my first impression was that she was claiming that the art director said that the objectification of the model was a virtue which is incorrect and thus I argued against it.
    If, instead, Remi meant that you cannot condemn objectification as bad while saying that it is sexy, then my reply at the top of this page applies. The art director never compliments the ad itself, only the trans depicted in it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
    And yet that is all that I have been arguing against. Everything else you stated I do not contest or, in fact, even have an opinion on.
    So you’re defending something no one is attacking?

    Leave a comment:


  • HardestadtTheEvenYounger
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    The problem isn’t that anyone thought the message was meant to support objectification.
    And yet that is all that I have been arguing against. Everything else you stated I do not contest or, in fact, even have an opinion on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
    It seemed like an awkward self defense on what is a touchy subject. She was having her feet held to the fire and wanted to make sure it didn't come across like she thought of the body in question as being a joke or disgusting.
    I don’t much care what she thinks. I care about the impact her art has.

    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
    Ultimately, the art director wasn't connecting the model's beauty with her objectification. At most, she was saying that "There are a lot of trans people in 2077 and they are beautiful. But corporations have oversexualized this beauty in order to sell products. This is bad and you will fight against it.”
    Which is exactly what I already assumed the intent behind the ad was before she said anything about it. The problem isn’t that anyone thought the message was meant to support objectification. The problem is, we haven’t seen any of these trans people who allegedly exist in 2077. This ad is the first hint of any kind of trans representation in the game, and what do you know, it’s objectifying and gross. Just like most media representation of trans people in real life.

    This would be a very different story if there had been any indication prior to this ad that the game would feature trans characters and deal with themes of sexual identity in any way. If we had seen trans options in a character creation screen, if we had seen trans-coded NPCs, if they had consulted with the trans community for advice on exploring trans themes respectfully, or better yet actually hired trans writers and artists. If there was any sense at all that CDPR was making an effort to treat this sensitive subject with due respect, then I would be inclined to view this ad as one small part of a larger theme of trans identity in a hyper-corporatized dystopian future. But we have none of that. What we have is a game with zero visible trans representation outside of a single objectifying ad, coming from a company whose track record of dealing with trans folk consists of a single tasteless joke on twitter, a non-apology, and a statement of intent to avoid politically charged discourse.

    Leave a comment:


  • HardestadtTheEvenYounger
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlaquin View Post
    Hence the confusion Remi was noting.

    No, but, “I think is sexy!” is not a good defense of content that is ostensibly meant as a critique of hypersexualization.
    It seemed like an awkward self defense on what is a touchy subject. She was having her feet held to the fire and wanted to make sure it didn't come across like she thought of the body in question as being a joke or disgusting.

    Ultimately, the art director wasn't connecting the model's beauty with her objectification. At most, she was saying that "There are a lot of trans people in 2077 and they are beautiful. But corporations have oversexualized this beauty in order to sell products. This is bad and you will fight against it."






    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Of course that’s the intent of the ad. From the moment I saw it I knew it was meant as an example of shitty things corporations do in the setting. The bigger issue is that the ad doesn’t exist in a vacuum. The game Cyberpunk 2077 exists in the context of a real world where the only media representation trans people (and especially trans women) get is fetishistic, exoticized, and played for shock value. And as the artist rightly points out, the cyberpunk genre is rife for exploration of trans themes, what with its heavy emphasis on body modification and identity. Yet, we have seen absolutely no evidence of those themes being explored in this game at all, and the first hint that we get of trans people existing in the game world happens to be fetishistic, exoticized, and played for shock value. Who’da fuckin’ thunk it.

    Leave a comment:


  • tasti man LH
    replied
    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
    Finding the person being hypersexualized sexy does not mean you are in favor of her hypersexualization.
    That's not the issue though.

    Because as of right now, we ONLY have the artists' word that that's the intent of the ad:

    Originally posted by tasti man LH View Post

    2. This is the ONLY confirmed depiction of trans-people within the game. It's not via an NPC or one of V's companions, it's not through playing a quest or encounter that shows a trans NPC reacting to the ad, and not even a demonstration of V getting cosmetic augmentations and showing them switching out their organs to a different gender. So for this to be the first in-game evidence of transpeople...is not good.

    It's still not good even if we take out the problematic context surrounding it: that despite CDPR's declaration that CP2077 will explore transhumanist themes, the first real in-game example...is in a screenshot used in an advertisement for GPUs. Which taken on its own, seems like CDPR doesn't consider the transhumanist themes to be a priority.

    3. Related to the above, we only have CDPR's word that things are totally not as offensive in the final game when everything is in its proper context. And, well, talk is cheap, and we won't know for sure if they meant it or are just trying to save face, and buy time until the game launches.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlaquin
    replied
    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
    And so is "“This is all to show that [much like in our modern world], hypersexualization in advertisements is just terrible,” Redesiuk continued. “It was a conscious choice on our end to show that in this world — a world where you are a cyberpunk, a person fighting against corporations. That [advertisement] is what you’re fighting against.”
    Hence the confusion Remi was noting.

    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post
    Finding the person being hypersexualized sexy does not mean you are in favor of her hypersexualization.
    No, but, “I think is sexy!” is not a good defense of content that is ostensibly meant as a critique of hypersexualization.

    Leave a comment:


  • HardestadtTheEvenYounger
    replied
    Originally posted by atamajakki View Post

    “Personally, for me, this person is sexy,” is a direct quote from /her/ in the article.
    And so is "“This is all to show that [much like in our modern world], hypersexualization in advertisements is just terrible,” Redesiuk continued. “It was a conscious choice on our end to show that in this world — a world where you are a cyberpunk, a person fighting against corporations. That [advertisement] is what you’re fighting against.”

    Finding the person being hypersexualized sexy does not mean you are in favor of her hypersexualization.

    Leave a comment:


  • atamajakki
    replied
    Originally posted by HardestadtTheEvenYounger View Post

    He didn't say that tough, he said that the person depicted is beautiful and that companies in the cyberpunk setting of the game hypersexualize that person in order to sell their products.
    In fact, he specifically said that you will be combating these corporations and that their objectification of people, regardless of their sexual identity, is bad.
    “Personally, for me, this person is sexy,” is a direct quote from /her/ in the article.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X