[vinman]

(12-25-2015 01:50 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(12-25-2015 01:34 PM)Malone Wrote:  

So you're making an 87 minute documentary that will be entertaining for 30 minutes?

Excuse me? I must have misread that. Because it reads like you're a cunt.

It's even funnier if you hear it in Sean Connery's voice.

[AnonymousBosch]

(12-26-2015 11:14 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

AB is just killing it....lol.

His posts are as complex, layered, and symbolic as...a painting by Heironymous Bosch.

Not really, mate. It was 2 in the morning on boxing day, and I was damn drunk. As such, I kind of didn't make my eventual point.

Two small points I left out:

- Whilst the banning of video games or the censoring of Twitter accounts deemed offensive might seem Authoritarian in nature, the Anti-Authoritarian Marxist wouldn't see it as such. They'd see the demands for censorship as coming not from the State, but from the Consumer Base itself - please report any offensive tweets! - and believe it was due to a) their radicalisation; and b) the work the ME did to radicalise them.

- Any company spouting Ethical, rather than Socialist, concerns is ME speaking, and ME's are particularly-involved in selling the Ethical Company Brand to the public and in positions of moderation. For example, Google's spin is entirely-ME driven, whilst the company's private actions are pure Authoritarian Marxism. This culture clash is going to create some serious drama in Silicon Valley down the road.

And my main point about McIntosh and Sarkeesian:

Sarkeesian's brand of Feminist Critique never struck me as Feminist - she's using the academic buzzwords but in contexts that always seem off, in a way that suggests she doesn't quite understand what she's saying - though I can't figure out if it's simply that she's neither very eloquent or intelligent. I always wondered if her lack of interest in free and open debate was evident of a scammer posing at Feminism, hoping no-one will notice.

I mean, compare her to Laci Green or Laurie Penny, and you'll notice the difference. They're idiots, but they're passionate idiots who understand academic feminist concerns instead of, well, TV Tropes.

This is why I think Fem Frequency was simply a Mental Environmentalist scam, 'jamming' both Video Games and Feminism at the same time, and it would have worked like this:

- Pretend to be a feminist calling for diversity

- Ride the Authoritarian Marxist Useful Idiots long enough to achieve a drastic increase in profile, social reach and power

- Cultural relevance achieved, transition out of Feminist concerns - ('Doom is violent!' was testing the waters) - to full-blown Mental Environmentalism under the guise of 'Cultural Criticism' rather than 'Feminist Criticism'.

Remember, back in 2012, she was making obscure videos criticising the new Lego Friends line that was specifically targeting young girls, claiming to show how Lego went 'terribly wrong' by making pink and purple sets that targeting traditionally-feminine interests like Shopping, Beauty, Pets, Fashion, Horses and Cafes.

The line was a huge success, and Lego tripled its sales to girls in one year.

To sum up: If the gaming industry wants to take advice on how to make their games more appealing to the consumer from Cultural Critiques who not only hate technology and consumerism, but whom also loathe traditional masculinity and traditional femininity, believing that doing so will help create better, more entertaining games that will appeal to a wider audience, then they deserve the widespread consumer rejection of their products that will result.

Why on earth would anyone ask a Marxist for advice on how to sell anything? How politically-naïve is Silicon Valley?

[PapayaTapper]

I don't know much about this chode but after after watching 30 seconds of the video I have an overwhelming urge to attend a rock concert in Aurora

[thoughtgypsy]

(12-26-2015 04:34 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

Why on earth would anyone ask a Marxist for advice on how to sell anything? How politically-naïve is Silicon Valley?

As usual, your thoughts exude a depth of insight beyond my normal exposure, and I was seriously fascinated by your analysis of ME. I think you're underestimating Silicon Valley or corporate America, though.

Silicon Valley has recruited the highest IQ, highest talent labor for decades, quotas and political correctness be damned. The government turned a blind eye to it as it was happy to collect tax revenue from one of the only remaining growth sectors in the country. SV knows that game can't go on forever, and eventually they'll be targeted.

I think this is a strategy by them to signal their loyalty to the state and avoid persecution down the line. It's their way of saying:

Quote:

"We can't possibly be kulaks, comrades! Look at all the money we spent fighting the kulaks!"

[HankMoody]

I bet making these videos about Roosh has gotten him laid by lots of females.

[HankMoody]

Also, I tried to watch it but I fell asleep.

What do I win?

[Aurini]

Nothing like waking up to a bunch of AnonymousBosch posts.

You're bang-on; that's what I want to isolate with the movie, that it has nothing to do with video games. A lot of useful idiots (feminists, etc) jumping on a bandwagon, when the purpose of the wagon is merely to disrupt and destroy. The HR rep at the office isn't there to ensure the smooth flow of work relations - she's there to disrupt families, whether she knows it or not.

What is truly frustrating about these people is that they latch on to good causes, and then put the cart before the horse.

Ads and consumerism are eroding the Western soul. Environmental concerns are real, and we should be investing in Nuclear power plants. Heck, I'll even defend Spec Ops: The Line, partly because I love Heart of Darkness, but also because the military shooters bother me on a moral level.*

The MEs are more interested in exacerbating these issues or solving them in some sort of a destructive manner. You pointed out how critiquing the advertising world was used to shut down companies making products people wanted; literally removing the products from the environment so that people don't even know what they're missing. With the environmentalists, we see nonsense like Carbon Credits, in which the ultimate goal is not to reduce CO2 but to destroy Western economies.

Their target is traditionalism, families, objective truth, the Church, and ultimately God. The Authentic Self they wish to achieve can only be reached when all such establishments (which they believe to be arbitrary rather than intrinsic) have been destroyed. When they latch on to a cause - feminism, race-egalitarianism, whatever - they wind up seeking the opposite solution from what any sane person would demand.

Let's take Black Lives Matter: I should be in alignment with their stated goals. I don't like the excessive number of laws, and police's propensity to resort to force and no-knock warrants. But the goal of BLM isn't to reduce officer-involved-shootings; it's to increase the violence in Black communities, ergo justifying a likewise uptick in police violence - and not just on Blacks, but on everyone.

The radicalize both sides, while secretly controlling the entire dialogue to increase the conflict.

*Maybe I'm just a prude, but I don't like the games for two reasons. 1)Why the hell aren't people just joining the military if they want to shoot bad guys? 2)These shooters are games, first and foremost; despite all claims to realism, the entire engine is balanced in such a manner as to create an enjoyable experience. Realistic combat simulators like Rainbow Six don't bother me, nor do fun games like Max Payne, but the pretense of realism in the army sims irks me.

[MMX2010]

I love AB's posts because they remind me of an argument against Game: "Why would you want to construct an artificial persona to make women like you? Can't you just expect women to like you for Who You Really Are?"

Counter-argument: "Who You Really Are is extremely large and complex compared to What People See You As. Therefore, the desire to be seen for Who You Really Are, and any concern over whether you're being Authentic, is rooted in the desire for the impossible."

No one will ever see for Who You Really Are. Once you accept this, you also accept that any act you perform is authentic because you authentically performed it. If you present yourself as confident, you will be seen as confident; if you present yourself as insecure, you will be seen as insecure - but in both cases, you will equally be "who you really are".

And so all considerations of whether you were being "authentic" are dismissed before they even begin.

Better, all rhetoric from the Mental Environmentalists is immediately recognized as stupid, and dismissed immediately.

Best, when you stop using your mental energy to ask yourself whether you're being "authentic", you'll be able to use the energy to Read The Girl. As in, "If I've read her correctly, she'll laugh like this when I say X. So I'm saying X just to see if I'm right."

Do this well enough and you'll understand why they call it Game. It's fun an hell, and you can get better and better at it.

[BortimusPrime]

I guess the real question is whether or not marxist subversion actually has much of any effect. We can agree that these leftist movements of all stripes will naturally latch onto popular media and large companies like parasites to try and use that popularity to promote their own message. And it's easy to blame those marxists once the companies to which they attach themselves begin making stupid decisions or putting out a crappy product.

But another possibility is that those large companies were already on the road to failure. The redlettermedia guys make this point continually, that big movie studios have lost the ability to make anything creative and just rehash the same garbage over and over, trying to reboot old franchises from the 80s/90s. This isn't motivated by any sort of political agenda, they're just large businesses with all decisions run by committee. (Can we have the main character use the phrase "Totally Rad!" more? I hear that's popular with the kids these days.)

Social Justice Wars: The Farce Awakens is a good example of this. There have been plenty of blogs in the manosphere griping about the girrl power Mary Sue protagonist, but let's say they made Rey a male. Then it's even more obvious that the movie was just A New Hope done all over again with more 'splosions. In this case the social justice shit smeared on the movie wasn't covering a diamond so much as just more shit. In the case of video games, the feminist crap hasn't really done much of anything. The Lesbian Walking Simulators were just crapped out by a few indie studios that went out of business because no one wants to play Sim Shop for Corduroy Vests. The big name games have been sucking because they're doing the same stupid shit movie producers are doing: ignoring innovative gameplay in favor of expensive cinematics. In RPGs they still haven't outdone the Baldur's Gate Saga, where you character is a small collection of pre-rendered sprites of only a couple hundred pixels each.

Large companies just don't innovate. They'll buy out good ideas and try to implement them (which can turn out great), but their executives are all yes-men and are susceptible to getting suckered into supporting a stupid social justicey marketing campaign simply because they don't know any better, or are desperate to find something to improve their lagging sales. (Can we have the main character use the phrase "Fuck your white privilege, cis-scum!" more? I hear that's popular with the kids these days.)

Ultimately, who cares? Just don't buy their products when they suck. Companies that make stupid decisions deserve to go bankrupt. Take up gardening, or just look at internet porn on the computer instead.

[infowarrior1]

(12-26-2015 07:51 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

PART FOUR

I suspect this whole process might have been hugely successful but for Zoe Quinn setting Gamers against Games Journalists, which woke up people who might otherwise have been subverted without realising it.

That being said, I think ME’s like McIntosh gained from Gamergate. I no longer play games, as I have no interest in supporting companies that actively-demonise gamers, or refuse to stand up to defend for their audience. Many games designers and companies threw their fans under the bus, and made me look harder at who these people were, what they believed, and why I should financially-support them.

See how a consumer now distrusts a producer, and vice-versa, and how the traditional capitalist transaction has been jammed?

I’m sure McIntosh is well-aware of the loss of good-faith with consumers a company suffers by inviting Sarkeesian to talk there or by publicly-sucking up to her, particularly the Heavy Consumers, (‘Gamers’).

As for Sarkeesian herself, she’s a bit of a wild card. She’s uncharismatic; has soporific delivery; has zero fire or passion; and is uninterested in debating her ideas. I suspect that somewhere along the line she started to believe that she was some kind of intellectual giant and was convinced by her Socialist Fan-Lesbos that she was a true agent of change, (note the addition of hair dye and excess pounds), and turned into a narcissistic monster demanding policing the internet to stop all criticism of her. In this case, her resemblance to Authoritarian Marxism is most likely based on ego protection rather than a conversion.

Basically, she started believing her own hype.

Anyway, that’s just my take on things. It might be useful to you, or not. It sounds crazy, but both strands of Marxists are delusional about reality and are crazy, so I can truly believe McIntosh would think he could destroy video games as a cultural force in the name of authenticity through disconnection.

In that regard, McIntosh and Roosh might have different politics, but I suspect they would both agree on the necessity of Unplugging.

--------

Just a note: I noted Aurini is a fan of ‘Spec Ops: The Line’, one of the first instances where I noticed Mental Environmentalism starting to infect gaming.

The game purely exists to throw a series of psychological accusations at the player – based on the stereotypical presumptions of gamers possessed by a Midwit Writer who believes they’re intellectually far above their audience. In the movie world, this kind of intellectual arrogance coupled with inferior intelligence results in terrible movies like ‘The Condemned’ or ‘Gamer’, where the viewer is constantly-berated for wanting to see violence – usually with an evil character saying how they’ve just giving the audience ‘what they want to see’.

The difference is both audiences and critics can recognise shitty exploitation movies with laughable pretensions to social criticism, but video games are so desperate to be taken seriously that games journalists will venerate, well, something of the quality of ‘The Running Man’.

Spec Ops: The Line assumes:

- only a certain type of player choses to play war games;

- the interaction with the game can only be about compensatory power fantasies;

- the player has never read ‘Heart Of Darkness’, which offers on-the-nose , plot-breaking foreshadowing;

- every player choses to take the easy road when offered.

The game hinges on an early decision that the game railroads you into taking – as there are no other options to advance - then berates the hell out of you for making it, despite me having tried every other option first. (I suspect the Writer is a Goony Beard Man / Pretentious Hipster. He later said there was another option: to stop playing there. I doubt they’d refund players for the unplayed content though).

The Mental Environmentalist Messages it keeps pushing on you:

1) Engaging in video game violence suggests fantasises of engaging in real world violence;

2) Killing virtual characters is the same as killing real people;

3) Only a bad person needs these violent power fantasies;

4) You’re a bad person for playing this.

This type of programming is very effective. A while later, I was playing a Zombie Game, and, hacking a monster apart, I thought “Huh, does this really need to be this violent?” This is after years of being desensitised by horror movies and games. See how they got me, despite me being aware of the subversive process?

I expect there's another video game crash coming, and it's necessary to purge the Marxist baggage. I lived through the '83 one. Games were a huge, omnipresent cultural force... until they suddenly weren't, utterly vanishing from the public sphere seemingly-overnight. They just... stopped-existing.

I am in awe at your explanation and understanding of the situation. And I have nothing better to say.

However I would like companies like EA games get taken down by this method.

Ruined too many gaming franchises for me.

[thoughtgypsy]

(12-26-2015 06:52 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

I love AB's posts because they remind me of an argument against Game: "Why would you want to construct an artificial persona to make women like you? Can't you just expect women to like you for Who You Really Are?"

Counter-argument: "Who You Really Are is extremely large and complex compared to What People See You As. Therefore, the desire to be seen for Who You Really Are, and any concern over whether you're being Authentic, is rooted in the desire for the impossible."

No one will ever see for Who You Really Are. Once you accept this, you also accept that any act you perform is authentic because you authentically performed it. If you present yourself as confident, you will be seen as confident; if you present yourself as insecure, you will be seen as insecure - but in both cases, you will equally be "who you really are".

And so all considerations of whether you were being "authentic" are dismissed before they even begin.

Better, all rhetoric from the Mental Environmentalists is immediately recognized as stupid, and dismissed immediately.

Best, when you stop using your mental energy to ask yourself whether you're being "authentic", you'll be able to use the energy to Read The Girl. As in, "If I've read her correctly, she'll laugh like this when I say X. So I'm saying X just to see if I'm right."

Do this well enough and you'll understand why they call it Game. It's fun an hell, and you can get better and better at it.

Great post. I just wanted to add, that Who You Really Are isn't an authentic quality, it's almost 100% out of your hands.

A vast majority of what constitutes who we are is decided even before we're born. Our genetics determine the inclinations and personality traits which make us unique. If we're introverted or not, what our natural inclination to depression or anxiety is, what our baseline motivation is.

The rest of our personality is programmed into us. Children are sponges, and the brain is designed to learn the customs, language, and values from their parents and society as a whole. True individuality is discouraged, and the narrative of a society is imprinted on people throughout their childhood and into adulthood. The environment that someone grew up in is a very reliable indicator of what their values are. Essentially, our personalities are largely a vessel to propagate the ideologies of our society.

If anything, learning Game, or any method of actively choosing your values or behavior, is the only way to be true to yourself and accomplish your goals.

[MMX2010]

(12-27-2015 10:27 AM)thoughtgypsy Wrote:  

Great post. I just wanted to add, that Who You Really Are isn't an authentic quality, it's almost 100% out of your hands.

I never thought of it this way. It's true, and highlights how powerless people become when they believe their genetic and social conditioning defines Who They Really Are.

Quote:

If anything, learning Game, or any method of actively choosing your values or behavior, is the only way to be true to yourself and accomplish your goals.

Once I learned about Frame and State, I realized that I could choose my Frame, then align my daily habits with this Frame, in order to produce a consistent, specific emotional State.

I've asked a few men, "What's the number one thing a woman provides?"

All have answered, "Sex!"

And I've replied, "That's interesting. I'm not saying your answer is wrong, but think about it like this. Step One: You see a girl. Step 1000: You're having sex with her. Now I'm not insulting your sexual prowess, because it depends on how you define a 'step' - but I still need to make up numbers for Step One and Step 1000, or 100, or 10,000."

"The point is that between Step One and Step 1000 is unknown and undefinable. And to set up such a system inevitably creates confusion, excitement, insecurity, and anticipation (all at once), which leaks out into your approaches."

"So if we change our answer to the question, such that Step One is we see the girl and Step Two is she's providing the number one thing a woman provides, then there's nothing in between those two steps, and no anxiety whatsoever."

"My answer is that the number one thing a woman provides is emotional honesty. Now I don't care whether she hates my approach, so long as she's emotionally honest about her hatred. And I don't care whether she likes my approach, so long as she's emotionally honest about her liking. So now I've zero anxiety whenever I approach a girl."

[Roosh]

Quote:

No one will ever see for Who You Really Are. Once you accept this, you also accept that any act you perform is authentic because you authentically performed it. If you present yourself as confident, you will be seen as confident; if you present yourself as insecure, you will be seen as insecure - but in both cases, you will equally be "who you really are".

Have you read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius? He argues that anything that you can voluntarily do is in accordance with your own nature. You can read it as him saying that ANYTHING you do is in fact you. There are people who can't even fake confidence, so confidence is not in their nature.

The real question is "Do I want to present this part of me for as long as I want to keep her?" It's not so much presenting a part of you that is "authentic", but acting in a way that is sustainable and doesn't cause internal conflicts, mental fatigue, etc.

[Aurini]

10,000 ft Observation: those most concerned with "authenticity" tend to be the ones who are utterly dominated by fashion; the fashions of Hot Topic, or fashionable ideas, what have you. They are the ones most defined by their environment.

The truly interesting or unique person is the one who dedicates himself to some cause, some objective standard of self improvement.

Imagine the following:

A man who dedicates his life to studying Karate, or-

A man who watches MMA, and loves to deride martial arts purists, but is nothing but an amateur in his own right.

The latter might even be correct, but he's far less unique and interesting.

[MMX2010]

(12-28-2015 04:32 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Have you read Meditations by Marcus Aurelius? He argues that anything that you can voluntarily do is in accordance with your own nature. You can read it as him saying that ANYTHING you do is in fact you. There are people who can't even fake confidence, so confidence is not in their nature.

I haven't read that, but I would if I had more time to do so. You're making me wonder whether I've always been a free-wheeling, happy, kind-to-everyone spirit who was tragically not allowed to be that way for the majority of his life. Maybe that's me. Maybe not. I don't know.

Quote:

The real question is "Do I want to present this part of me for as long as I want to keep her?" It's not so much presenting a part of you that is "authentic", but acting in a way that is sustainable and doesn't cause internal conflicts, mental fatigue, etc.

(This will meander a bit, but I'll keep it as tight as possible.)

My brother and I had this exact same conversation recently. We're pretty close, and he is four years younger than me. In our youth, he has always had significantly better social skills, but I've transformed into the more social one. He knows I study Game.

He has a 33 year old girlfriend with strong feminist tendencies, whom he describes as "on the outside looking in, regarding dating, for the majority of her adult life". She isn't ugly. She also knows that I study Game, and highly objects.

In Bang, you tell beginners they need definite, written-down goals. You say it's because Game has dry spells, and remembering your goals will power you through a dry spell. But I say it's because those goals will automatically come true, (whether they're consciously-known or not), so a newbie needs consciously-chosen, happy goals.

I asked him to guess my two goals, and he was wrong twice. They are (1) To take Game seriously, "like a college course", so that I can be an honest representative of what Game can do, (especially for an old-newbie). (2) To find the joy in every Game-inspired interaction, especially the ones that "go sideways" or break my heart.

He said that my goals were very idealistic, and he can't imagine himself either "putting in that amount of work" or "having to be on all the time".

I told him that two of my favorite moments came from having to switch myself on.

------

The first happened shortly after you and I met. I'm in Sephora and I just want to buy moisturizer and leave. The two girls behind the counter aren't that cute. But one says to the other, "That guy who comes in all the time asked Aileen why she isn't thin like all the other girls."

My eyes light up, and after confirming he said that, I say, "I'm actually part of a secret internet community that focuses on hitting on girls, and as a member, I've gotta say that's an excellent opener. Eight out of ten. Would repeat."

She asks if I'm serious. I tell her absolutely, and that I'm working on something to say to her, but my brain is a little slow right now.

So I look at her. Hispanic. Hair dyed blonde. Very tasteful. Curly hair is perfect. Make-up is perfect. Eyebrows are perfect. Lipstick is perfectly-applied, and not obnoxious. She has a small freckle bordering her upper lip that's the same color as her lipstick. Touchdown! I get my smirk on and say, "I've got it."

She interrupts by saying, "I really want to hear what you have to say!"

I reply, "I really like the color of your lipstick...(pointing to my own lips, where her freckle is)....even though it makes your lips look like they're expanding right here."

She looks away, and laughs what I call the "I don't like it, but I approve of it!" laugh. It's my favorite laugh of all.

I reply, "That's the look I'm looking for. You have a nice day."

----------------

The second happened last week. It's early in the morning. I haven't caffeinated yet. I just want to buy my food and coffee, then leave. The clerk isn't attractive at all.

She asks an unattractive female customer, "Is it big inside? (referring to a coffee cup)"

I practically grumble to myself, because I'm tired. But I cannot pass up that opportunity.

So three minutes later, I tell the clerk, "You know. I'm part of this secret internet community that focuses on hitting on women. So when you asked that other woman whether it was big inside...."

She interrupts by smiling, and saying, "Oh my God!" Her smile doesn't make her any more attractive, but it does make her happy.

-----------------

I still am a beginner in a lot of ways, but I admire Game's ability to discover and inject joy / hilarity into just about any conversation. I also know that when I get very tired, all I can do is think of titles that I cannot execute. (So my brain will say, "Agree and Amplify!", but it won't come up with a single example of that.)

But I really enjoy being able to perform this way when I'm mentally fatigued. The only hurdle I foresee is when a chick lives with me and sees just how the magic spell is performed.

So overall, you're right about the mental fatigue. But I think a man can willfully choose to become whatever role he wants, despite the threat of mental fatigue or damage from divorce / her annoyance.

[AnonymousBosch]

Samuel reminded me of this thread the other day, and I saw this tweet today and laughed. Look at the Mental Enviromentalist squirming in fear that his beloved 'Cultural Jamming' might fall victim to abuse of takedown notices for copyright infringement.

http://imgur.com/apof2Wq

It's interesting to see McIntosh's involvement was deliberately-minimised in Fem Freq over the last few months, if not removed entirely. Whilst I saw the division in unspoken intention vs professed beliefs, most likely Anita realised Marxist Identity Politics is more Personally-Lucrative than M.E., since the latter threatens to kill the cash cow Millennial Feminists want to milk, (since Millennials see no shame in 'selling out' as long as they get their piece of the pie). Maybe ME can't survive against Capitalism because it's an inherently-Gen X style of belief and SJW Millennials don't hold themselves to those kind of Objective Moral Standards, i.e. "What's morally-right is what's good for me".

[TooFineAPoint]

(12-30-2015 02:56 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

But I really enjoy being able to perform this way when I'm mentally fatigued. The only hurdle I foresee is when a chick lives with me and sees just how the magic spell is performed.

This becomes a problem. As discussed from various angles before, audiences (women especially) need the appearance of effortlessness.

I live with my girl. I see her put on makeup, pick outfits, and do her hair -- over and over. It never ruins the effect for me. In fact, I enjoy watching the transformation (she looks good without it, but different of course... plus with it she can do many different looks, achieving that variety I crave).

But I see it as her putting in effort to look good for me. Satisfying.

She sees more and more every day the effort I put in to be in shape, to shop/cook/eat healthy for long term protection, to read and grow in various commercial skillsets. Mainly, she is exhausted by it all. But moreover, it's ruining the illusion that I am "just good at this stuff".

Pairbonding makes her appreciate my efforts and gain security from these habits, but the need to keep some of the mystery remains.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

As much as I like AB's posts, looking now after 2 years we see that the Sarkeesian stuff, Gamergate and Zoe Quinn - all those issues were just warning shots of the battle ships that would be rolled out by the globalists.

Nowadays most major Game companies including all content creating media outlets like major studios have Diversity consultants, LGBT consultants - some have even VPs of Diversity and Social Justice Church like at Google.

Case in point:

Bioware and other major companies making characters deliberately ugly.

Transgender characters:

Marvel has hired SJWs and women who don't like superhero comics, 98% of women will never really like Superheroes, but they still hired a bunch of those women who are now called the Milkshake crew:



They won, not because of some clever plot by Feminist Frequency or the low-tier SJWs. They simply won, because the world's trillionaires are behind them, they create the cultural marxism taught in colleges and they also own the corporations which hire the Diversity consultants and the SJWs who have to do one thing only: PUSH THE AGENDA!

The people they hire don't play the Video Games of men, but they love to influence them.
The people they hire don't read the comics of men or even particularly like the Big Budget Movies, but they sure love to "be someone at Marvel" and they of course love to influence the children and the people with their moronic bullshit.

Sales are secondary. So I guess that this is to stay, the market won't influence much honestly. It will be a slippery slope forward into the great cultural slow revolution.

Of course sooner or later it will all fail, but that may take decades or even a century.



And if there are lower sales it is due to the racism and bigotry of the audience and not because they are creating batshit-crazy insane characters that no one wants to read.

The same bullshit goes for Games.


Make them ugly, make them square jawed, make them unappealing, "redesign male beauty perception" - that is how they think.

[Dan Woolf]

Even the Uncharted franchise has gone off the rails now.

[loremipsum]

That's why I don't even bother to play (new) video games anymore, or games overall.
First they ruined gaming with DLC, then microtransactions and then social justice.
Kind of sad, but it frees up your time though counter-intuitively isolates you from other people.

Unless you are pirating these games, buying them even just to "see what it's like" is just straight up supporting this degeneracy.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(08-31-2017 03:07 PM)loremipsum Wrote:  

That's why I don't even bother to play (new) video games anymore, or games overall.
First they ruined gaming with DLC, then microtransactions and then social justice.
Kind of sad, but it frees up your time though counter-intuitively isolates you from other people.

Unless you are pirating these games, buying them even just to "see what it's like" is just straight up supporting this degeneracy.

I like some games like No Man's Sky or ones created by independent houses that are not generated with a SJW-bitch of diversity overseeing the sexist male programmers, but the choices become fewer just the same as with movies and TV series.

[Rhyme or Reason]

To be fair, video games stopped being interesting, innovative, and stopped pushing the envelope years before the SJW infection. That's just the nail in the coffin.

Classic games like Starcraft and Diablo represent the peak of achievement in video gaming as far as I'm concerned and no one is going to convince me otherwise.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

(08-31-2017 05:37 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

To be fair, video games stopped being interesting, innovative, and stopped pushing the envelope years before the SJW infection. That's just the nail in the coffin.

Classic games like Starcraft and Diablo represent the peak of achievement in video gaming as far as I'm concerned and no one is going to convince me otherwise.

and Civilization 3, which is from the same era. Also, I assume you also include Diablo 2, but not Diablo 3.

[Rhyme or Reason]

^ Yes, D2. One of the best games ever IMO. D3 was horrible, and showed how far blizzard had fallen since d2.

[Blaster]

(08-31-2017 05:37 PM)Rhyme or Reason Wrote:  

To be fair, video games stopped being interesting, innovative, and stopped pushing the envelope years before the SJW infection. That's just the nail in the coffin.

Classic games like Starcraft and Diablo represent the peak of achievement in video gaming as far as I'm concerned and no one is going to convince me otherwise.

Dark Souls is the peak of achievement in Video Gaming.

But otherwise yeah, I mostly agree. Perhaps it's just my personal bias but it seems that, mobile games aside, there's been a recent surge in games that emulate key genre elements of games from the 2D era, even if they're technically implemented in a modern 3D engine.

But still, it seems clear there's something viscerally compelling about modern FPS games like Call of Duty and Overwatch. They are incredibly popular.