/games/ - Games

ITT chuds and incels talking about women.
This thread is pure entertainment. Keep going.

>>39941
>hot women
sigh
>the lack of that sexual attraction in lesbian women necessarily leads to not drawing hot women somehow.
women identifying with other women is the most clear-cut case showing it's not "gynosexuals in general". do you deny moids unique preoccupation with women as an object of either sexualization or infantilization (or sometimes both) makes their female characters often turn out as caricatures?
>they define gender
isn't that why they have everything to do with one's gender? culture dictates individual consciousness
>Progressive values
where are those "progressive values" exactly?

>>39943
>do you deny moids unique preoccupation with women as an object of either sexualization or infantilization (or sometimes both) makes their female characters often turn out as caricatures?
Making caricatures instead of real female characters is more of a problem of bad writing and straight males not actually talking to real women than anything. But yeah, I guess straight males are more likely to get it wrong since they're… well, not women.
>culture dictates individual consciousness
My lord, such essentialism.
>where are those "progressive values" exactly?
I say the US and Europe are partly progressive, partly conservative depending on the country and state. The Deep South and Eastern Europe are obvious conservative shitholes.

Because straight women as warriors makes no sense. You know every warrior woman was a dyke c'mon.

Women aren't built for war. Women are hardly built for the outdoors even. They can't piss standing up. I work outside for 8-12 hours a day and every time I turn around my coworkers are pissing anywhere and everywhere. There is no modesty in IRL war. Did you know the female body even reacts to such conditions? Women soldiers often stop getting their periods at all. The body is like: "You can't keep menstruating with this rugged lifestyle." But the body can't make a piss funnel grow on command.

Women do in a pinch as front line troops. But they are certainly not ideal. It's really a sign of desperation, but it works. Women can't point can aim a gun as well as a man.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

>>39945
>My lord, such essentialism.
There is a relative degree of independence and means to immanently critique your cultural standpoint, but it's definitely not as independent as you're making it out to be.
>I say the US and Europe are partly progressive
What do you particularly see as progressive. The drafting of women into the labor force, individual property rights and the choice to forego marriage? While women in conservative shitholes are explicitly forced into marriage, "western" women now have the choice to be directly exploited by captitalism (still at lower wages than men), thus losing the economic protection the family unit would have provided them. Modern tradfaggotry, which has been coming for a long time, reflects this with its "voluntary" adoption of sex roles. Instead of a pressure to marry, they coincide with unchanged economic pressure and broader societal expectations of femininity being leveled at women. Look at this specimen >>39946 who considers joan of arc unfeminine because she isn't protrayed like her modern fate counterpart.
Flood detected; Post discarded.

>>39950
>who considers joan of arc unfeminine because she isn't protrayed like her modern fate counterpart.
All the pictures all fake but it is obvious by reading about her she was a lesbian. Come the fuck on.

>>39951
Now I have to find a million gay publications claiming her. Lol. I just intuitively know that's a thing.

Ohhhhh these specimmeeens…..

>>39951
>>39952
But you get that saying someone is a lesbian sounding awfully like euphemism for "failed" woman in that context because they look kinda butch is lowkey misogynist, especially for a historical figure?

>>39955
>>39955
>But you get that saying someone is a lesbian sounding awfully like euphemism for "failed" woman in that context because they look kinda butch is lowkey misogynist, especially for a historical figure?
Tell that you your 10,000s of queer hombres. Why are you coming at me? Come at your own kind.

>>39956
Want me to keep posting? The queers think she's queer and I think she is too, is it problematic when I agree with them?

>>39957
>every warrior woman was a dyke
is lowkey misogynist, unless you qualify it with the role of heterosexuality in making women more docile. Doesn't help that it's above >>39947

>>39959
Both are me…
Lol. Most men aren't legendary warriors either. I wouldn't call every man a warrior man either. Women who are kicking asses aren't doing their makeup and all that. You guys AND gals want some porno representation of model-esque women fighting wars, but it don't work like that. Fighting wars is a very "butch" activity.

>>39960
Like first off, your bodyfat percentages are going to drop approaching a man's if you're a warrior. No ass and boobas. Ass and boobas aren't for war.

>>39960
You're implying that by
>kicking asses
and not
>doing their makeup
or being
>model-esque
they're somehow less of a woman.

>>39962
I mean they even stop menstruating, isn't that making them more masculine? Their testosterone is raised.

Anyways besides the point, now you're going to make me advocate for gender-essentialism. I believe they're women no matter what they do. Just pointing out how stupid this idea of women with high bodyfat percentages and no muscle as warriors is.

>>39963
It may be in medieval-ish fiction, but honestly not when it comes to modern warfare. They only need to be strong enough to carry a rifle and generally fit/lean.

>>39964
That's what is required from soldiers globally

Soldiers are required to have a lot of stamina so most are just skinny really

The roided freaks are just amerimutts, some euroaches and other countries buckbroken by hollywood garbage

>>39965
Also soldiers aren't just hyper patriarchal standards of manliness, absolute majority are just normal thin men

I would be lying the garbage mysoginistic standards weren't encouraged but claiming "not having a dick to piss" makes women inherently unfit to be even outside is mysoginistic garbage

>>39946
>>39947
What in the fuck am I reading?
>>39950
>it's definitely not as independent as you're making it out to be
This is a mindset of an unconscious egoist who only sees abstractions instead of individuals.
>What do you particularly see as progressive.
Progressivism is a relative term. Certainly the position of minorities under capitalism is miserable but it's better than it was before and certainly better than in conservative countries.

>>39946
>Joe of Urk
Was only a flag bearer, didn't fight much if at all. Ended a roastie.

>>39947
Looking for trigger points I see.
That said yes, physically on the average and even mentally I wouldn't trust them to be equal to men, too much emotion and hystery boiling under their thin skin.

>>39953
>The Wonderful Legacy of the LGBTQ+++ in the Middle Ages
It's just a little bit forced?

>>39962
More like they're not helping themselves get picked by men and fucked to make babies, technically, perhaps because of cultural norms.

Fit and lean ladies could become a new norm in a more combat oriented culture that is also more welcoming to women being tough, but frankly that would be looking for exceptions and trying to draw generalities out of this.

Most women simply are very sensitive and mentally break very easily.
Whether you are OK with this or not is another topic.

>>39965
Stamina alone doesn't cut it when considering the average weight of proper gear.

>>39966
>I would be lying the garbage mysoginistic standards weren't encouraged but claiming "not having a dick to piss" makes women inherently unfit to be even outside is mysoginistic garbage
But women need to duck and cover to piss.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>39974
>actual misogyny
This is the wrong kind of anti-wokeness. I wonder why you're still not banned.

I think GamerGate is the cause. All that big fuss over something so minor lead to making gaming a political thing and it was astroturfed by people taking advantage of that to make a quick buck. I am not sure who took on this representative role of consultation how they got in there but it probably was something like that. SpI dont really know how these companies are structured so it's purely guesswork here.

>>39983
>GamerGate is the cause
pls go

>>38927
humans only need one game and that is counter strike on a russian server
the rest is redundant

I think we should pay more attention to what developer teams made certain games rather than who published them which may shed more light on why modern AAA is bad. If you look closely you'll notice that all the good dev teams are either dead or shells of their former selves. EA killed off or severely damaged Black Box, Criterion, Maxis, Bioware, EA Sports Big, EA Canada and others. Ubisoft did the same to Ubisoft Montreal and Ubisoft Montpeller, arguably two of THE MOST important Ubisoft studios EVER. Many industry vets have left, the AAA dev teams are
pretty much unrecognizeable. The industry is simply not what it used to be, that's the truth. It's not just the overblown budgets, everyone just got replaced and fired or left voluntarily.

The reasons why AAA games suck that we listed are:
>hypermonetization
>restructurization
>exploitation
>enshittification
>wokeification
>Denuvoization
But let's talk about another contributor into the downfall of AAA's quality: casualization. AAA games are simplified so much today that they ectively break immersion. All these unnecessary enemy markers, all these abilities to see enemies through walls even if you're a regular-ass human being, all this one-button gameplay where all your actions lack variety in terms of input and happen instantly even though they should realistically take several button presses to complete, straight-up magic where it shouldn't exist, arcadey power-ups that make the combat look stupid, constant hand-holding even after the tutorial sections, etc., etc. All this to just keep the casuals' attention. Is a game even a game if it's so rail-roaded? And how can one have fun if the gameplay breaks your immersion and the combat isn't fun 'cause it's simplistic af? Why can I see through walls? Are we playing Splinter Cell or Assassin's Creed?
>>39017 (me)
Also, Upper Echelon's point about grinding being a signature of hardcore gaming is fucking retarded. Grinding is a casual mechanic, it exists to compensate the lack of content the game has. The problem with WoW is not that Blizzard reduced the grind but rather that they reduced the grind in a way that feels unrewarding and shallow.(USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST)

>>40058
I disagree with usage of the word "casual" here. It operates under old dichotomy of casual vs hardcore gamer, which existed back before video games went full mainstream, casual meaning players who dont spend much time on games. But current industry target demographics is not that, but, dont know what to call it, I guess an average consumer. People who do invest time and money on video games, and consume adjacent contend (reviews, articles, videos), engage in fandoms, post on social media about products. But they are not "hard-core" gamers, because of their aversion to deeper engagement, to anything challenging or complex, or artistically meaningful. They want a game that jiggles keys in front of their eyes, occasionally asks them to push a button and then tells them what a good job they did.
And I know I sound like a bitter neckbeard writing this, but first time I became conscious of this type of person is on Total War subreddit, where majority of userbase is genuinely upset at the idea that a strategy game should ever expect them to strategise.

>>40062
>meaning players who dont spend much time on games
You're equating "grinding" with hardcore gaming too. You don't really need to spend a lot of time on games to be a hardcore gamer. After all, someone who spends hours on a toilet playing Candy Crush can't really be considered a hardcore gamer either. True, hard games require time investment, but I play just fine on the hardest difficulty settings even if I don't play often.
>I know I sound like a bitter neckbeard writing this
You really don't, it's okay to criticize consumers, just as it is okay to criticize reactionary proletarians.

>>40064
>You're equating "grinding" with hardcore gaming too
I dont. As I wrote, I equate it with deeper engagement with mechanics and desire for challenge. That inevitably requires time investment. That time investment can be spread out over a long period of IRL time, but still, you need to put lot of time into one thing to get good.
>After all, someone who spends hours on a toilet playing Candy Crush can't really be considered a hardcore gamer either.
I havent played candy crush, cant comment on it. But people dont spend hours a day sitting on a toilet. What I am trying to do is make a distinction between people who play Candy Crush 10 minutes a day sitting on a toilet (casuals), or people who play for 3 hours a day and also use whatever monetization there is in that game.
From game design and marketing perspective, casuals are not averse to challenge (for example might play challenging puzzle games), but are averse to steep learning curves and complex mechanics, because then getting into the game requires more investment then they are willing to give. What they want is being able to jump in and jump out of the game. Yes, individually there might be people who game for average of 15 minutes a day and spend two weeks of their gaming time reading manual and trying to figure out controls and crunch numbers for optimal build, but that is simply not a significant demographic.
What "average consumer" looks for in the video game is entertainment and power fantasy. They are willing to spend lot of time in a game, experience lot of contend, but are averse to negative feedback, to failure, or too much pressure and effort. Which isnt a bad thing in itself, but is fundamentally at odds with hardcore players seek.

>>40064
To give one example of casual vs hardcore I encountered recently in relation to grinding, I was searching the internet for opinions on the newest Tactic Ogre remake, and one thing lot of old fans were upset about was removal of ability to grind, because you can no longer simply brute force your way by overleveling the enemy.

>>40066
>casuals are not averse to challenge (for example might play challenging puzzle games), but are averse to steep learning curves and complex mechanics
Hardcore gamers can be averse to that too, some hardcore gamers prefer the "easy to learn, hard to master" approach. Not many people like flight sims, racing sims or fighting games for example. When I refer to casual mechanics I'm talking about those mechanics that either make everything into a one-button press or feel more like cheats that dumb things down. Enemy markers, x-ray vision and autoaim are the examples of this.
>>40068
>one thing lot of old fans were upset about was removal of ability to grind, because you can no longer simply brute force your way by overleveling the enemy
RPG players are their own breed, nobody genuinely understands RPG players except for other RPG players. I despise grinding in RPGs but I absolutely love Super Meat Boy and Devil May Cry. Grinding requires zero skill, classic WoW players for example are only hardcore gamers because they actually organize boss raids and shit. That's a skill I can respect, it's kind of an RTS element in classic WoW.

>>40069 (me)
This video describes precisely what I'm talking about. It's not about having less mechanics. It's about having more mechanics that are stupid.

>>40068
Fuck, messed up my own definitions, average consumer vs hardcore is what I mean to write.

>>40069
For me what separates good and bad grind is sense of progression. Having to grind make my numbers go up to meet enemy numbers going up, so in the end nothing changed except I wasted bunch of time. On the other hand I love Mount and Blade, which is entirely about grinding, but its gameplay loop evolves with progression.

This video is probably the biggest waste of my time ever. The takeaways are:
>You can't compare Concord with Overwatch because artstyle different
>Nobody would care about the designs if the game was a flop
>Liking Overwatch's designs is just nostalgia blindness
>Why is the character design more important than the price tag?
>You can't put the blame on the developers, blame the executives
I'll answer them one-by-one.
<The reason people compare Concord to Overwatch is because Overwatch's character designs are good, this has nothing to do with the artstyle
<Overwatch 2 also had a disappointing launch (though this atrocity is sadly still alive) but even it had good character designs because Overwatch has good character designers and 3D animators (who still haven't left Blizzard for some reason)
<See above
<It is not, no reviewer only critiques the anti-consumer practices, reviewers give and take away points for story, gameplay, audio, graphics, technical issues, monetization and replayability, all aspects of a game are important
<I understand crunching and executive meddling negatively impact development but someone looked at those models and said: "Yeah, this is fine," not to mention it was SIX YEARS IN PRODUCTION
His other points are perfectly valid but as usual he spends most of his videos talking about irrelevant shit he doesn't really understand. If his video was short and his points were "Complaining about not being able to goon to characters is silly and one should take the artstyle into account while designing characters" it would've been fine but it feels like he was unnecessarily defensive about the game he himself doesn't like. Maybe it's all just to pan out the runtime.

>>40110 (me)
You know what? I agree that gooner slop is not good design. As I look through the """improved""" redesigns I realize that they try to be sexy but end up being bland and forgettable. Concord's designs suck ass but at least there's an attempt at creativity (a failed attempt but an attempt nontheless). That doesn't mean a sexy design can't be good but conservatives seem to think that fanservice = good design and that's just not true. Some characters like Bazz and It-Z may work well with a fanservicey design but others like Emari? No. Just no. It doesn't really work… Unless you really double down on the Amazonian physique. And remove the armor from her abs like with Doomguy.

>>40115
Personally just taking a female character's clothes away isn't sexy to me. I think it functions largely as a design shortcut to make a character "sexy" when there's nothing else particularly interesting or attractive about them, the female equivalent of the generic anime/harem protag.

Which isn't to say I'm opposed to scanty clothing per se. I can't pretend I don't enjoy Ivy, Mai, or 2B. You know, it's like the difference between candy and real food. Sometimes you want a simple treat, but too many empty calories without the substance of a real meal makes you sick.

>>40120
>Personally just taking a female character's clothes away isn't sexy to me.
Same. I think conservatives ironically became massive coomers themselves.
>I can't pretend I don't enjoy Ivy, Mai, or 2B.
Same, these are good designs. Eve from Stellar Blade too.

>>40071
>made a banger video essay and then never posted again
Shame.

>>40110
>Why is the character design more important than the price tag?
This one is valid though.
It's very hard to justify the live service model without being F2P nowadays.
That's not to say that F2P would have saved the game but likewise "good" designs wouldn't have either. It was a double whammy.

>>40138
>It was a double whammy
Exactly. And that's why he's wrong, I don't think the game would sell with these designs anyway.

>vidrel
NAH-AH, FAKE NEWS, FAKE NEWS!! Concord's characters are still getting lewded. Especially It-Z and Roka.

>>39958
This is the very definition of grasping at straws.

>>39959
>lowkey misogynist
Is it? I mean, it's still incredibly stupid but it seems to be cisheteronormativity or something. I mean, it isn't outright homophobia and cissexism but I'm 1000% sure homophobes and cissexists believe in such bullshit.