This claim is something along the lines of an argument from authority, another logical fallacy. In essence it is that we cannot take the opinion of someone simply because they do not meet some standard that the opposite party sets. I am capable of making an opinion about the game without having played it. One can speak about space without having been there, one can talk about giant squids without having ever seen one and one can talk about a game they have never played.DaemianLucifer wrote:Yes it is.And no self respecting scientist talking about any aspect of africa would do so without visiting.
It is worth noting that others that have played the game have the same opinion on the matter as me. Their opinions are not better or worse by virtue of them having played the game.
Yes, please. What if I claimed that a game can have a moral concious? What if there might be something wrong with killing all those things because they are 'evil'? I find it interesting that morality and gameplay are so often thought to be independent.Ok,lets then look at the rights of animals:Spiders are being threated wrongly here.We must change that.No spiders can be killed in such a brutal fashion,and the player should avoid id.Then lets look at pao kai:Those are endagered species,and should not be harmed at all.Lets look at the right of orcs and goblins:The game is so racist and pictures them all as evil,but they are all inteligent and should have equal rights as other races.Whant me to continue?
On the other hand, even if you just want to look at *the game* and nothing else, I would say that gameply of this sort plays into male fantasy acts and little more. Keep in mind also that women actually exist, that is important to note. Real things, humans specifically, that are in a text certainly have more weight than fictional creations. This is not to say the orcs and cannot be thought of as something else, but humans, simply be them being human, garner more attention.
I have never said this. Aspects of texts that feature this, a female in distress that must be saved, could be sexist. That is all I've ever maintained on the subject. I am increasingly becoming irritated at my statements being misrepresented.Grumpy Old Wizard wrote:So you are saying that any story where a man rescues a woman is sexist. Is a story where a woman rescues a man sexist? If not, why not?
I have never claimed that this was the case. Texts, by virtue of them being fiction, are bound by different rules than 'real life'.If a man who works for the fire department rescues a woman from a burning building is he sexist? If a man who is a forest ranger resuces a female hiker who fell down an incline and broke her leg is he sexist?
I have no idea what you're even talking about anymore.Gender and sex are a part of life. If a man asks a woman out on a date is he sexist? If a woman asks a man out on a date is she sexist? If a man and woman engage in sexual banter are both the man and woman sexist? Is there anything natural about gender, sex, attraction, and courtship?
I have already addressed the nature of the fallacy here. Also, if the game is sexist, I can say it is trash with no more thought.You have not even played the game. Your opinion is not based on first hand experience. You do not even know the story. How can you say the story is trash when you have not read it?