@Asmo

Except my daughter doesn't want to play other games--she wants to play Mario Brothers games. They have excellent game and level design. Why should she have to go elsewhere? Are you trying to say Mario Brothers games not for girls?

All my daughter is asking is to be allowed to play as the Princess--maybe after you free her from Bowser. That doesn't seem like much to ask, as it would have exactly zero effect on gameplay.

Personally, I'd go much farther and say when a game series continuously sends the message that women are helpless victims who need to be defended by men, when they're continuously objectified as trophies to be passed from player to villain and back to player again, then something is very wrong with that game and things need to change. Yeah, other games may be great, but why should that prevent people like Sarkeesian or myself from pointing out the games that aren't? Why should the trend itself not be pointed out when we can find examples of it outside of the Mario series?

No, it's not required that every game have a male/female playable character. It is, however, good business sense not to insult potential female customers of a product by portraying females (playable characters or NPCS) in sexist ways (or homosexual characters in bigoted ways, or ethnic minority characters in racist ways, while we're on the topic). This doesn't seem very difficult to understand and clearly game companies DO understand it because most are making great efforts to be diverse and more realistic in their portrayals of characters. However, just because some are trying doesn't mean we shouldn't point out the bullshit in those that don't. Games like the Mario platformer series, for instance.

You disagree with the way Sarkeesian presents her message... okay. I don't have a problem with that. I think everything you wrote grossly misrepresents what she's saying about games and gamers, but you're entitled to your opinion there.

Moving on... sorry you felt insulted. That was never my intent. But your comments on this issue are written in an extremely emotional manner as if you've somehow been personally wronged. If you don't want people to take it in that manner, you might want to think carefully about the tone your posts on this topic take. I have no idea what that link you provided was supposed to prove, so I'll just leave it alone.

On "Damsel in Distress," it's "your trope" because you've been--throughout this thread--defending it as if it is some bastion of literature that must be preserved. You are quite literally the only person I've ever seen actually try to defend it. And as I said, if it is that dear to you, you can have it. Games will still get made using it.

Other media,though, have long since moved on from it. Take the movie Die Hard as an example. Yeah, the main character's wife gets taken hostage by terrorists and that provides a nice emotional hook to move the plot forward--damsel in distress, right? If it were a game, though, we never would have heard from Holly Gennarro McClane again until Bruce Willis killed all the terrorists. Or maybe a video recording of her would show up after every "boss fight" where she tells John McClane, "Sorry honey, but I'm being kept in another part of the building."

But that's not what happens is it? The character of Holly is central to the plot of the movie and she appears nearly as much as John McClane does. She tries actively to subvert the terrorists by hiding her true identity and by taking responsibility to make sure the hostages are treated well during their captivity.

In other words she's portrayed as a real human being with personal agency throughout the movie.

And that's the point that you seem to be missing. That doesn't happen often in games despite the fact that it does happen in every other form of media (or at least in the examples from media that we generally consider "good"). When we are talking about the "Damsel in Distress" trope in games, THAT is what is being critiqued. Not the fact that someone was kidnapped to provide an emotional hook, but that one particular gender is always targeted and--to add insult to injury--is presented as weak, helpless, and without any agency of their own. They exist for the sole purpose of being rescued.

Thanks for the pro tip, BTW. Had no idea you were a pro at being a patronizing git but I'll take your word for it.

Oh christ, that was awesome... please don't remake Die Hard

@Trancecoach
interesting.
i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better.

and in doing so i offend you?
and you respond by offending my sensibilities?

do you REALLY think i cannot think for myself?
are we in some epic battle where there is some abstract "winner"?
i thought i was talking to someone who i am quite fond of and who i also just happen to disagree with on this particular subject.

i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism.
which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room.it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790.
even blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships,a privilege given by the people,to be dissolved when the project was concluded.
and blankfist is a die hard libertarian.

or is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you?
maybe reading too many heritage foundation essays?
have any of these articles outlined the flaws in capitalism?
like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?
that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything..eventually and eventually everything will become a commodity.
to be sold and traded.

its not like it is a huge secret.
the problems with capitalism are well know and well understood,but i guess you are not one of those people.

and i am not one of those people who are good at conveying things such as these..never have been.
but i have always been respectful with you,even when i disagree.
and yet you assume my intentions.
take offense when i meant none and snipe at me from some imagined superior balcony.

i was never trying to say you were wrong.i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe.

and now as i am writing this i am being forced to question.
will he take this sentence wrong?
how will he perceive this word in that context?
and i have to admit..its kinda irritating.

but ya know what?
thats on me.
i made certain assumptions about you based an very little.
he likes floyd..check.
dropped some acid back in the day...check.
is educated and in the psychology field...check.

so every correspondence i have had with you is with that person in my minds eye.
i have written every word to you as if you were sitting right next to me.

i wrote about this before and you ridiculed me then.i should have gotten the message.
you are not the person i gave you credit for.
you are you.
and thats ok.

watch the video if you wish.its pretty informative.
or dont.
it doesnt matter.

i apologize for offending you.
/end transmission

*related=http://videosift.com/video/Honest-Action-Die-Hard

Honest Action - Die Hard has been added as a related post - related requested by PlayhousePals.

I mean, that's assuming you want to count Die Hard as a "Christmas movie" rather than just the time of the year that movie happens to take place.

They forgot Die Hard: Office Christmas party is crashed by terrorists, but they don't have a cause, they just want money.
- It's a morality tale about rampant holiday consumerism. If you want a Happy Xmas give up all your worldly possessions, even your shoes!

Then again, they also said those few black kids going to all white schools were idiots too . . . Or those few Indians who stood against British rule . . . Or perhaps those few women who protested and marched until they had the right to vote?

See, the problem with that statement is that many cyclists are actually out there to change the world for what they perceive is a better way of life. Not to mention, they have tons of research on the subject to back up their claims (unlike the situations I cited, which btw, I am well aware are on a totally different level of human abuse).

The issue is of course is you have some die hard cyclists who aren't there to make a statement, but because they're counter-culture. They're hipsters. They're going to run stop signs because "fuck authority" etc. Then again, I've been hit 6 times in my car. Care to guess how many of those were because someone didn't obey a traffic law? That's why we have those rules to begin, to prevent "accidents" from occurring.

As a cyclist-commuter, and as someone who drives thousands of miles as work requires, I say if a cyclist blows through a stop sign and you hit them, their own damned fault.

Many of us, including myself, have petitioned to create a Yield on Stop Under 30 rule. In essence, we have way to many stop signs in this country. This goes for cars as well. And you know you've done it at some point: you come to a stop sign in some part of a housing project and you "California Roll" through it. Or a "Brooklyn Stop." Whatever you want to call it.

But I do know some cyclists who blatantly disobey rules as a fuck you. But as a cyclist who stops at red lights, who stops at stops signs, who checks behind me to see if I can make it easier for a car to pass me, the whole "fuck cyclists" thing tells me exactly what I see on the streets everyday: we don't need cars. Cars create assholes. Cars insulate you from the world around you and the people around you become anonymous boxes of steel that you don't care about. It's a me me me me society.

To that matter, the cycling community here in Orlando is pretty big given our population and disgusting sprawl patterns. The majority of us you'll never notice because we're doing things right. Some of us, you will notice because we are doing things right. When we make a left turn, we get in your way. So would any other vehicle. Are we going too slow? Suck it up. I can't tell you how many times some asshole comes within inches of me trying to speed past me . . . on a 25 MPH road while I'm doing a good 18. We almost always end up at the same stop sign or red light.

So yeah, as you said, the extreme ones are stupid. It goes both ways, as you said. But FYI, the world would be a better place if everyone rode a bike. Just saying.

"Like die-hards of the racist south
a century and a half ago,
who would destroy the union
before giving up their slaves
so would these people
burn the place down,
sink the ship of state
and sow economic chaos
to get their way."

So true...

There's a conversion to electric for all you die-hard Miata enthusiasts-For about 10K you can convert a Miata to full-electric and the range and power is pretty impressive-The conversion should get cheaper as the battery technology advances.

The things' a decent car when it's running (response sucks and it rides like a buckboard) but you have to be Asian or a tiny girl to avoid the sensation of being jettisoned to drive an escape pod.

I am guessing the pleasurable experiences in these cars come form folks who have not owned one over 75K miles and have had to deal with any abrupt power loss in hot climates which NO Miata tech can give any conclusive advice as to how to correct.

The cars' pretty much a turd for performance, all it's appeal is in it's boutique position in the auto world and how fucking adorable is is when the tops' down and a cute chicks' driving it.

I'm 5'3",145lbs and I feel like a football player in uniform in the damn thing.

This viddy is funny, fun!

I broadly agree with what he's saying but he's wrong about Africa. Africa is different because the west's supply chains and the gimping of local resistance to this is already very strong and much more well established (also Somalia was in Africa last time I checked Wes).

The global supply of Gold, Diamonds, Cocoa and Coltan (used to make micro electronics) amongst others are all heavily based in African countries.
Were their supply to be jeopardised (especially Coltan) by local politics you can be assured that the relevant African country would swiftly become a scorching political hot potato.
Unfortunately such a good job as been done over the last 100 or so years of suppressing African development that such problems (with a little encouragement) tend to take care of themselves before they become a big deal. Then western interests can just back whichever co-operative warlord/corrupt regime comes out on top, quietly and without fuss.

The spice must flow!

Simply put, Africa has been beaten around by the west for that bit longer and harder than the middle east. The exploitation of Africa goes back 100's of years and around 100 years ago when western powers began to cede their direct control they made sure to fuck up the local cultural politics so badly that most countries have still yet to recover from the fallout.

The middle east only became a candy store about 60-100 years ago with the oil boom. Before that western attempts to control the middle east were largely religious in nature (though no less brutal I suppose).

I assume the "powers that shouldn't be" are well aware of this and as such the plan to which Mr. Clarke is referring represents a scheme to try and break the back of the middle east financially, politically and culturally while they still can.

That said old ideologies die hard and I suspect the old western religious motivation is still not to be downplayed. The Christian ideologues and Jewish Zionists may not use words like "Kafir" but in some way their beliefs demand that they think of outsiders in the same way.

If the God of Abraham does really exist I'm sure he finds this whole arrangement greatly amusing (I imagine nothing pleases an ego maniac more than watching sycophants fighting and killing each other for your affection).

God must die. God must remain dead. And we must kill him.

The more you tighten your grip on Obama hate, the more votes will slip through your fingers.

This is why you lose bobknight. You just have zero consideration for your audience. Even if you dislike Obama, Even if you're a conservative, unless you're a die hard true believer, you're going to be turned off by this video.

The "big tent" party keeps getting smaller and smaller when you double down on this "worst president evar" mentality.

Old white people aren't getting any younger. Remember that.

Oh... when I saw the title, I thought it'd be a teaser for the next Die Hard film

I think I can understand it. They're projecting a lot onto that person and need a response that validates the emotional investment.
They need to believe in something and the celebrity is a convenient focus. So an actor can't just be appreciated for their work, they are "nice", "down-to-earth", "appreciative of their fans" etc.

I've never, ever been susceptible to this behaviour (ok when i was about 10 I got the autograph of a magician) and it's something that most people grow out of - the age range of these fans must be around teens to late twenties.

While the scribbles may be just that, having the star pay any kind of attention to them is probably very powerful.

For the star, this kind of adulation might be tiresome, but these people watch your films. If no one showed up that would be a bad sign.

BTW every little snippet I've read up to now suggested that Butler was an insecure dick. But his charm offensive for this Die Hard clone has been well received - see his reddit AMA and the gushing posts.

They, umm, forgot to add a punchline to the sketch?

The obvious ending would have been everything the same until they got to Die Hard 4, at which point they'd both abruptly go quiet, stand around slightly awkwardly, maybe wave at a pedestrian, brush some lint off their uniform or whatever.