Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Really?  What makes female sports teams less entertaining to watch than male ones?  I assumed it was just momentum.

I don't really see the entertainment value in most sports anyway, though.  Not saying it isn't there (that would be absurd) but I can't evaluate women's basketball VS men's basketball because both are uninteresting to me.

It is the famous sexist line: "Even if you took the best female players and put them on a single team and pit them against the worst sports team in the men's league they would lose"

Or the line in that Futurama episode: "We can't dunk but we make up for it with stronger fundementals" *Cue laughter from the men*

Both these lines are meant to be sexist (well the second it is the laughter that is supposed to be sexist)... but honestly... the issue is that... its true (mind you I highly doubt the WBA can't dunk at all, but I never watched it), why would you watch the inferior product?

Mind you I think women's sports is important and should be supported. I just think its viewership is mostly deserved (mostly... people bad mouth it a BIT too much)

[Rolan7]

That's comparing their athletic ability, not their entertainment ability.

My guess is because of momentum and prestige.  People get really invested in teams they and their families have supported for a while...  Which explains why they wouldn't care about the new female versions I guess.  So maybe it's not really sexism at all.

[Orange Wizard]

My guess is because of momentum and prestige.  People get really invested in teams they and their families have supported for a while...  Which explains why they wouldn't care about the new female versions I guess.  So maybe it's not really sexism at all.

This sounds about right. Though I don't really care about sports anyway, so my contribution is probably moot.

I very much doubt that there's some kind of sexist conspiracy to make people not care about women's sports, in any case .

[NobodyPro]

Welp.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2014/10/04/353702104/intel-pulls-ads-from-gaming-site-amid-gamergate-debate

Intel is pulling its ad campaign from Gamasutra due to the ongoing gaming-journalism-related debacle that shall not be named. Gamasutra appears to have alienated enough gamers that people started mass-emailing advertisers on the site, and, of course, gamers are part of Intel's customer base.

After reading the article I'm not surprised. It's well written and has a good point but could easily offend someone. It's a pity because Gamasutra always writes good articles on subjects like this E: and I hope they get their advertising back.

[DJ]

That's comparing their athletic ability, not their entertainment ability.

The two are directly related. There's a lot more people watching 1st league games than there are people watching 3rd league games, and it's not just because of tradition. It's also why the leagues with the wealthiest clubs, like English or Spanish, are planetarily popular - they simply buy up all the best performing players.

[Phmcw]

> It's well written and has a good point but could easily offend someone.

It's yet another article that throw gamers under the bus, without reason, and from newcomers.
It look like some peoples think they will attract goodwill by calling everyone sinners. Doesn't work everytime folks.

Especially since those article are nothing more than poorly disguised propaaganda. The backleash that those "feminist" have caused is immense. Games are not a good medium for feminism anymore and it's their fault.

As for the article, it's wrong on all count. The "gamer demographic" they are describing is a strawman that never existed. You could aim for the lowest common denominator, or you can aim for exellence. And generally speaking, it pay to aim for exellence (I'm not speaking of game that have a marketting budget as big as their developpement budget, those are just classic hollywood recipy to sell shit in a nice package).

[Sheb]

So I was looking up second- and third-wave feminism on Wikipedia, and found one of the best-titled article ever. However, my disappointment was great when I found out it didn't have a "war box".

[NobodyPro]

The "gamer demographic" they are describing is a strawman that never existed. You could aim for the lowest common denominator, or you can aim for exellence.

X-Blades is a terrible game featuring an anime foxgirl in a thong. It sold enough copies to justify a sequel. Making products for the lowest common denominator is often incredibly profitable.

[Neonivek]

The "gamer demographic" they are describing is a strawman that never existed. You could aim for the lowest common denominator, or you can aim for exellence.

X-Blades is a terrible game featuring an anime foxgirl in a thong. It sold enough copies to justify a sequel. Making products for the lowest common denominator is often incredibly profitable.

They seem similar, but no those are two separate games...

THOUGH I think X-blades has a sequel... it is a 3d platformer.

[Rolan7]

Are you sure?  The main character has the same name, the same hair, same silly outfits, and the games are called "X-Blades" and "Blades of Time".
But... she doesn't seem to have the belly tattoo in Blades of Time, and it's by a different company, so maybe somebody was just incredibly uncreative.

Edit: Nevermind, the belly tattoo only exists on box art anyway.

The long-haired beautiful anime, with her pistol blades and mind-blowing leaps, whirls and swirls from one fantastic level to the next.

Did they just unironically call a character an anime?

[Graknorke]

Looks like a ripoff rather than a sequel. Unless it's one of those cases where the company dissolves and then starts up under a new name in order to avoid being associated with previous shit. But then why would they make a sequel to an incredibly mediocre game? No Blades of Time was made by the same guys that made War Thunder, and they apparently retroactively got the rights to X-Blades. Or something. Not really sure.
I'm not exactly sure how this is 'lowest common denominator' stuff though. Unless that phrase has different associations for you.

[Soadreqm]

After reading the article I'm not surprised [that Intel is pulling its ad campaign from Gamasutra]. It's well written and has a good point but could easily offend someone. It's a pity because Gamasutra always writes good articles on subjects like this E: and I hope they get their advertising back.

This article? Well, I think the basic problem with it, the problem that Intel's decision to withdraw its ad money is a symptom of, is that this "gamer" demographic the article bashes is pretty much supposed to be Gamasutra's target audience. That's why Intel started advertising with them in the first place. Because Intel hoped that Gamasutra was the kind of site that was frequented by the kind of people who played a lot of video games, considered gaming a hobby worth spending money on, and might be buying new CPUs in the near future for gaming purposes. If Gamasutra publishes articles that attack the gamer demographic for being basement-dwelling nerds with zero social skills, what reason does Intel have to keep giving them money? Are tumblr feminists a major consumer of high-performance computer hardware?

Also, if you think that the article makes a good point, what are you even doing here?
I mean, Dwarf Fortress is pretty much the most nerdy game there is. The people ruining Leigh Alexander's day, these horrible despicable losers who get all their social interaction in Call of Duty, look down on Dwarf Fortress players as some kind of twisted, mutated sub-basement dwellers, hideous troglodytes that scrape together a pitiful existence somewhere in the dungeons underneath the CoD basement. I'm not saying that everyone on the Bay12Games forums should think of themselves as gamers, but most of us are definitely nerds.

[Putnam]

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/09/gamergate_explodes_gaming_journalists_declare_the_gamers_are_over_but_they.html

[Neonivek]

Well, they shot themselves in the foot. With an RPG. Whilst standing on the last bit of solid ground whilst surrounded by lava and lavasharks.

Look... They thought they could Rocket Jump but they didn't realize gaming Journalism goes by Doom rules.

[NobodyPro]

This article? Well, I think the basic problem with it, the problem that Intel's decision to withdraw its ad money is a symptom of, is that this "gamer" demographic the article bashes is pretty much supposed to be Gamasutra's target audience. That's why Intel started advertising with them in the first place. Because Intel hoped that Gamasutra was the kind of site that was frequented by the kind of people who played a lot of video games, considered gaming a hobby worth spending money on, and might be buying new CPUs in the near future for gaming purposes. If Gamasutra publishes articles that attack the gamer demographic for being basement-dwelling nerds with zero social skills, what reason does Intel have to keep giving them money? Are tumblr feminists a major consumer of high-performance computer hardware?

I never disputed Intel pulling their advertising after a website insulted a large portion of the enthusiast market. I assumed that the article's point was that the word gamer is being used like the word otaku, not just online but in reality.

Also, if you think that the article makes a good point, what are you even doing here?
I mean, Dwarf Fortress is pretty much the most nerdy game there is. The people ruining Leigh Alexander's day, these horrible despicable losers who get all their social interaction in Call of Duty, look down on Dwarf Fortress players as some kind of twisted, mutated sub-basement dwellers, hideous troglodytes that scrape together a pitiful existence somewhere in the dungeons underneath the CoD basement. I'm not saying that everyone on the Bay12Games forums should think of themselves as gamers, but most of us are definitely nerds.

The article isn't referring to nerds, its referring to the kind of person who would define themselves by their hobby. I play a lot of video games but I also do other things. I'm a nerd but I'm not a gamer.

EDIT: I found this comment on the Slate article and it pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter:

No one but the most poorly calculating commenters were calling people anything because they play videogames. The point was overwhelmingly that understanding "gamers" as an identity built around certain common characteristics and attitudes is a thing that is dying, because the people who play games are basically everyone at this point.
It's like trying to define an identity around "movie watchers" -- people who watch movies are diverse enough in their attitudes that there aren't a lot of common characteristics that identify them. The same is true of "people who play games", as popular as that's become. So "gamers" *as a distinct subculture* ARE dying, because a subculture of almost everyone isn't an actual subculture anymore.