Be Excellent To Each Other

And they're off!

Told ya! Shameless moralist bait. Or stupidty. Either way, tosh.

Seems like the triumvirate of Glinner/Brooker/FatOneFromConsolevania are urging a boycott.

Heh, yeah. Should be good for a laugh at any rate.

I'm most excited about the fact that Brooker and Linehan have both been pimping that IGN article by Keza MacDonald, but Rab Florence hates Keza because she attended the launch of "Catherine" which was held by PRs in a dirty rotten strip club of all places! Talk about building a city on a major fault line!!

What the fuck? Was this written by a nonsense-babbling feminist?

'Those woman, they're always being sexualised in games, and look at them being brutalised, by a man, with his filthy phallic gun-penis!'.

Le sigh.

I couldn't really give a shit either way, but it does seem gratuitous. I'd argue that it would be more controversial (and would probably generate more publicity) if they'd just fought in their original habits.

Plus they could have used a pun like "old habits die hard" or something :O

"I wanted a curry and asked for a hot naan!"

It's, at best, a lame attempt to generate some attention. At worst, it doesn't exactly help the image problem of gamers as male drooling idiots. (See also: this bullshit.) It's immature and unnecessary. It's definitely worth calling the devs out on.

It's ultra-sensitive reactionary bullshit, and reaffirms my general loathing of Brooker. So 47 is killing a few 'scantily' clad woman (and in the scope and scheme of 'sexualised' I find their appearance pretty standard, uninventive, and boring), because they're trying to kill him. He kills them, violently. THE GAME IS CALLED HITMAN. HE KILLS PEOPLE.

'They're trying to sell this based on the sex and violence'. Have they never played any other games where this has always been an underlying marketing tactic? Suddenly getting up in arms about it as being allegedly 'gratuitous' is just fucking bobbins. Presumably they have reacted the same (ney, more severely) to every GTA game ever released?

Hitman has always been great because it allows for sneaky stealth ninja tactics, but also lets you go fucking mental with bombs and shotguns if you feel the urge. The video actually combines silent takedowns with overt shooty death - perfect.

The other point, well highlighted, is that Agent 47 is built to survive, at any cost, and he will kill anyone without remorse, showing no emotion, using any means. The fact he's 'broken a woman's nose' is entirely unsurprising, and the fact she's sexily dressed is about as controversial and as boring as Charlies Angels.

Worth pointing out that later games in the series (particularly Blood Money) penalise you for being too overt with your murderings, though.

Not in a particularly permanent way (in BM, for instance, you can use the ridiculous sum of money you get paid for each mission to bribe people for a pittance and reduce your notoriety that way) but stealth and non-violent-deaths are very much encouraged.

Coming from someone playing life on the lowest difficulty setting, I don't think that opinion carries much weight. I'm on that setting too, but I'm not the one telling a woman she was wrong to find the ad offensive.

Like the 'Message for Craster' thread, for example?

Well aye, Hitmen are still supposed to be stealthy, and that's the general premise of the game. Not locking you into that though is great, albeit with consequences of notoriety which I perceive as quite realistic.

Anyone that would boycott a game based on a trailer is an idiot. I'll judge it based on gameplay, and my enthusiasm to buy it is based on watching the first level run-through. Forgettable promo material seeking to create a buzz is not representative of the game and isn't worthy of such whiny outrage.

EBG meet WTB.

LOL

You are a constant parody Gaywood, although of what I can't quite pinpoint. It would take a supreme nerd to laughably classify race as a 'difficulty' setting, but your penchant for link quoting in every post demonstrates this strenuous desire you have to look well-informed, but only highlights how little you have to offer of yourself.

So if I was a black, female lesbian my opinion on this matter would be more valid? How does that work? Presuming on the validity of a person's opinion based on nothing other than race, gender, and sexuality is probably the most unintelligent and bigoted position I can think of.

Considering the objection is one of glorifying violence towards women, I hardly think the sex of the person holding the opinion is irrelevant.

Will Porter points out on Twitter that the first three Hitman games had no female targets:

http://hitman.wikia.com/wiki/Category:H ... 47_targets
http://hitman.wikia.com/wiki/Category:H ... in_targets
http://hitman.wikia.com/wiki/Category:H ... ts_targets

Interesting.

I stopped putting effort into Beex when it was overrun by boorish twats. Now I'm just here for hehe and lolz, and the dwindling pool of people I like.

Given it's a game, I wouldn't care if it was a female character that specialised in the exclusive killing of men in the most violent and interesting ways possible. I wouldn't care if it was a black, female lesbian killing only white men. I wouldn't care if it was hermaphrodite killing the entire human race using only a giant novelty dildo. It's a game.

Well-adjusted and educated human beings don't start abusing and objectifying women because they play a game where that happens to be a theme - if indeed it is a theme of the full game and not just a one-off trailer. And if you're not a well-adjusted and educated person, it wouldn't take a game to make you a sexist, abusive arsehole, and I still await the appropriate studies that indicate otherwise.

I'd say you're on pretty shaky ground saying that people's attitudes aren't influenced by the media they're exposed to.

Also that women who feel offended by objectifying media are wrong to be mad at the media, because mostly it's only played by well-adjusted men.

And even shakier ground saying that a woman is a 'nonsense-babbling feminist' for being offended by pretty graphic scenes of women being beaten up and killed.

When was the last time you saw a female main character in a game that wasn't a) smoking hot, b) some sort of super-figter-ninja, or c) both?

I'm having to go back to Silent Hill 2 (I think it was 2), I think - although there are surely more recent examples. But not many.

Possibly stretching the limits of 'female' there.

Who the fuck is that?

Also: Thread split? We seem to have gone past Hitman now.

My bad. That was my character in Saints' Row 3.

And I'll start splitting.

That's harsh. I don't think I've overrun the place by any stretch.

Breaking news: Sex sells.

Sexualised women appeal to heterosexual men. Sexualised men appeal to heterosexual women. Fact of life and driven by basic biological imperitives. That has always been capitalised on to sell things to those that are easily influenced by something as simple as a pair of tits or muscular abs. With that in mind - just what is it about this trailer that is sufficiently different from established marketing practices that makes it worthy of such condemnation?

So on the one hand, we have some CGI women dressed scantily. Not that scantily either - a bit of leather, all a bit dull and uninventive.

On the other hand, we have a hitman, in a hitman based game, killing those women. Because in the context of the trailer they are trying to kill him. They aren't being 'brutalised', they aren't housewives, or girlfriends being beaten up at the hands of a violent man at no provocation. They are hit-women, trying to kill a hitman, and get killed as a result. The hitman is violent and emotionless, and will do anything to survive. The way the trailer plays out is entirely consistent with the premise of the game and the established personality of Agent 47.

I say again, what is there to be offended about? This isn't GTA, Agent 47 isn't calling them bitches, and isn't given missions to teach 'dem hoes' a lesson, isn't demeaning them, and has a personality that has always been presented as asexual.

The trailer could have shown him killing men, but since a hitman will kill anyone, particularly someone trying to kill him, having him kill a few women with the whole 'sex sells' thing in mind is absolutely, boringly, standard. I'm not saying they're not trying to use tits to sell, but it is demonstrative of knee-jerking feminist nonsense-babbling, yes, to assign a variety of non-existent themes to it, and thereby call for a boycott of the entire game.

What did I do?! I whinge about games, not about anyone's right to be offended by gratuitous sexism and violence.

You arsehole! I hate you!

But seriously, don't tar me with that brush.

It's comic book violence as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, big tits and leather, blah blah blah. It's not PC but I can't remember anyone moaning about the prostitutes in Sin City for being scantily dressed or trying to create media hysteria through a boycott.

There was masses of outrage about beating up prostitutes in GTA, wasn't there? Not saying there should have been, but it's consistent, at least.

Is that you when you were 22?

GTA prozzie problem isn't comparable to this pithy trailer. GTA prozzies were subservient victims but as EBG says in this trailer they're trying to kill him and he's retaliating; it's just advertising. I doubt this is even representative of what's in the game. It'll never even make the cut (or even be a cut scene) because its just something cool to show to keep it in the publics mind and stir up interest. Whoopy fucking do.

I would say that's a lot more brutalising and sadistic than the violence depicted in the Hitman trailer, particularly given the characterisation of pimps and prostitutes in the actual game. But still, that was just a game that very many people of this forum enjoyed. Are any of you currently slapping women about, or are in any way more predisposed towards doing so as a result? Would you have concurred with a boycott of the game? Etc.

Again, you're rationalising it though. I'm struggling why there would be a desire to rationalise away someone's reaction of taking offence. Sure, ignore it - because let's be honest, it doesn't affect you if there's a boycott - but if a person sees it and is offended, is that a reason to start insulting them?

There's a danger here that you're telling people what they can and can't be offended by. I don't think bringing past examples into play is particularly helpful, either. We're talking about people who aren't on this forum being offended. Sure, GTA didn't offend me (and presumably many others on this forum), and neither did this trailer, frankly. But the point is, it has offended someone, and they're speaking out about it. And even though it hasn't offended me, as I said when I first saw the trailer, it's either deliberately trying to offend people or the people who made it are just plain frigging stupid. Either way, it's almost laughably unnecessary, and should at the very least be chastised for that.

The fact that it's being slated for being sexist is exactly what it deserves. It certainly deserved some sort of criticism.

No. Unless they keep going about it, that's when you're lawfully obliged to punch them in the tits.

Ah, so I shouldn't comment on things unless they directly affect me? Gotcha, and no problem, as long as feminist game reviewers and dreary social commentators can do the same.

One phrase I'm quite keen on, spoken muchly by anti-theists, is that nobody has the right not to be offended.

Aye, go on then.

There's also a danger that creative output will be curtailed if we take too much notice of these alarmist reports in an attempt to appease.

Who's asking for the right not to be offended? Other than these straw-feminists in your head, I mean?

Where the hell have you been?

Get back in the Airfix thread!

"This person thinks this and I don't agree" is perfectly sensible commentary. "This person thinks this and clearly they are a useless feminist nutjob" is somewhat different.



Absolutely. But equally, you don't have the right not to be offended by the fact that they have taken offense.

Not really. The trailer is a deliberate attempt to court controversy. I'm glad it's getting it, because it's shit.

If something is a legitimate creative work and receives alarmist reports, they can defend the work because it is legitimate - therefore there isn't really any danger of that happening. This isn't legitimate. They have no defence, so it'll burn.

Hitman has a history of this stuff, of course. Advertising for Bloody Money showing assassinated women in lingerie were banned in many places.

Second guiltiest wank, ever.

You realise that no one's even come close to saying anything like that? I mean you obivously don't realise that, but you should, is what I'm saying.

The guiltiest was presumably when you went out and killed a scantily dressed hooker after seeing that advert.