Was thinking the same. They already made few, albeit minor concessions in TW3 so as to not ruffle feathers.

a random suggestion - why not stop using labels and threat people as... well... people instead?

edit - I don't think you really want to know how labels are used...

On this part I agree. Sadly, i've seen some hate thrown at people for wanting entertainment media to cater to them, and at media for trying to cater to those people. Baldur's Gate: Siege at Dragonspear is one example. Some gave the devs hell over a minor character that happened to be trans.

Oh no...a GIF on Twitter, what ever shall we do...

pGG vs aGG isn't really about how women are portrayed in video games. It started out being about ethics in gaming journalism, then it became angry gamers versus the media accusing them of being scum, and now it's a minefield of a fight between an extremely aggressive segment of feminists on one side and equally aggressive "culture warriors" on the other.

And at this point it really doesn't have anything to do with "gamers" anymore, if it ever did.

That said, as a non-SJW, non-feminist, liberal, atheist, gender-egalitarian male gamer, who has been playing PC games since I got my first PC back in 98, I have to say that the portrayal of women in video games also annoy me at times. So many pretty faces that have no character, no personality, no depth. I can totally identify with people who would offer that criticism.

But what some times bother me senseless is that those people don't seemingly have a similar problem with the portrayal of males in video games. Aside from the crazy muscle-bound protagonists who aspire to a life of never-ending fedex duty, look at who gets to be the random goons thrown into the meat grinder for entertainment? Why, they're almost all males. Heck, Borderlands 2 bandits are all male and you get a bonus when you've murdered enough of them. You get. A bonus. For murdering. Males? This is something that should have given Sarkeesian and others a *head asplodes* moment, isn't it?

So yeah, women are for looking at and not much more, which is a bit lame, but men are for murdering without a second thought and maybe with a smile on your face. Is that any better? But it is what it is, and I'm not that offended after all, as long as the game is at least fun. Borderlands 2, for the record, was fun.

I wish that people would cut out the ideological and political rubbish and just focus on the cold, hard details, without all that culture war garbage. At lot of video game characters are borderline insulting, male and female. Video game story writing and character portrayal isn't really an area where devs tend to invest all that much effort. Is that good? Is that bad?

Or is it merely something we should accept, acknowledge, and maybe take into account when deciding which games we like to buy and which we games we skip? And then try not to be offended when someone makes a game that isn't specifically designed to be exactly what you or I or someone else wanted?

Regardless of what one feels, however, there is a sensible conversation to be had about modern day gender culture, but it cannot be had under the headline of "gamergate". Nothing good can come from going into "gamergate". It is a lost cause with entirely too much vitriol and hatred and burning gasoline and powder kegs. As such, I reckon GOG did the right thing backtracking on that tweet.

Just a little thought: If I were GOG, I'd ask my lawyers if it'd be possible to drag that vg247 site to court and to sue the shit out of them for harming the reputation of my business over a silly tweet. The "press" can do a lot of things, but they surely can't put you near a group that "has been proven to lead to radicalism and even murder", just because you posted a promotional gif of a video game.

ps. Not saying that Gamergate leads to radicalism and murder. That's just a quote from vg247.com

Hehe! Whenever talking about the US politics, both the Republicans and the Democrats nearly always assume that I am from the opposing party. In fact I am often called a "Conservative Nutjob" and "Liberal Freak" within the same discussion scope. It's quite entertaining actually. Kinda blows their little minds when they realize that they both assumed I'm with the other. :D

Liberal freaks can't be conservative nutjobs too? Classical liberals, aka libertarians, could reasonably qualify as both.

Anyway, it isn't the political leaning that really counts for much, it's the (rampant lack of) arguments and rationality. Obamacare doesn't suck just because it begins with "Obama" or it is "socialist" or some nonsense like that. It sucks because it doesn't do the job well enough. Better than a worst case scenario, sure, but not good enough.

And Trumpcare doesn't suck because Trump came up with it, it sucks because he didn't come up with anything, had his absense of an idea printed onto paper, and then tried to use that non-solution as a viable way forward for US healthcare. Yeah, who knew healthcare was complex, right? Only anyone who ever worked with it.

So what it really boils down to is that the rampant partisanship is going to turn democracy into idiocracy, if you'll pardon me for throwing my .02 euro your way.

Ok.

And not everyone who stands against prejudice and discrimination is a communist.

THIS is the problem with politics in the internet age. Any disagreement, and conversation devolves into bullshit name-calling.

Ain't that the truth. Can we go back to the 90s?

I feel as though whatever I say no matter how much merit, its always get countered and I never have anyone stand up for me.

Is GoG going to respond to this or not?
Everyone who's against the censorship and the "apology" (That ends up maligning a notable portion of GoG's market base) is showing up. So many high-rated comments in the Postal thread reaming GoG for this while so many others who are effectively for it getting their comments buried in downreps.
Its ridiculous.

I don't think that suggestion is random at all, and I don't believe you quite understand what I'm getting at. I'm trying to tell you that "SJW" is used to describe a certain mindset and it's not just a label that people throw toward others as a derogatory term. Instead of begrudgingly accepting labels people pin on you like a donkey, perhaps you'd be better served thinking about whether it's being used in a way it actually means something. If it's just used as an insult, it doesn't mean anything.


Well, yeah, people are gonna bitch no matter what you do. You can't make everyone happy. Though I have to say that while I personally am not familiar with the character you're talking about, I have heard from somewhere by coincidence that said character is blatant and poorly written pandering similar in kind to the trans person in Mass Effect Andromeda.
If that is actually the case, which I don't know for certain, negative attention is inevitable. Poorly written pandering characters tend to rub people the wrong way. It's possible to write female, trans and whatever characters in a way that they don't come across as their only reason to exist is to be the token trans/female/whatever character.

So it's like, which comes first - the character or some arbitrary characteristic of the character. Which is the focus.

Now I'm gonna buy the game on steam and piss on the grave of Gaming Journalism like in that gif.

Thanks GOG. You made me buy a game that I never had the intention of playing, on a different platform.

"SJW" has indeed become meaningless.
In fact, a lot of the people in this thread screaming about "SJW" are just doing so because it makes them feel cool,daring and edgy.
And ot the others who scream about SJW are bigots, pure and simple.
The oldest rick in the book for bigots is to claim they are the ones beind discriminated against.