Did anyone ask for this?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
I didn't think I'd end up with a reply, but figured you'd disagree. I'd put you in the opposite of the most I said that wanted it. Albeit "most" can be something like 51% too.
But the point In was trying to make was its not the fact the virtual thing I'm moving around has virtual tits and vagina that bugs me. Most of the ones that aren't irritating are in older games. New games with female protagonists are usually totally ruined by being yet another manly woman doing man things because feminists force it and that's the part that's irritating.
And the thing is, you get the weirdest complaints in the weirdest of places.
South Park: Stick of Truth. Great game, had fun playing through it. But it would NOT make sense if you could be a girl, if one knows ANYTHING about the show, and the storyline of the game - they would have had to have made two completely separate storylines to accommodate playing a girl. But some people either can't get that through their heads, or just complain about it without caring about the story or the source material.
No Man's Sky. People actually expect to see turtle people, robot people, and ... ugly buttface warrior people ... and other random otherworldly aliens with specifically female human mammaries and curves. It already uses "they" as an exclusive pronoun, because, well, everyone is an alien.
And I heard rumblings about it coming from Paranoia: Happiness is Mandatory, which, if I remember a brief session with the pnp version of it back in the day, is populated by androgynous clones for reasons that should be clear to anyone loyal to Friend Computer ....
It's almost as annoying as the nits who infest every single-player game forum with "waaah, how cum I can't play with my fwiends in Skywim?" Fucking faggots who never learned to do anything by themselves, who think every goddamn game needs multiplayer "because".
It didn't bother us in the past because we didn't know we were under attack yet. That's my honest opinion.
I bet if we could go back with the knowledge we have now, we could see that the agenda was already slowly forming.
We'd be fighting on less fronts, most likely, because some of the movements could be stopped.
As for stopping it entirely - not as long as people refuse to accept "muh good women" is not an argument.
based and theImpossible1 pilled