Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

meadowlander

meadowlander's Journal
meadowlander's Journal
December 13, 2024

The boys who can't share their toys.

The Witcher 4 trailer dropped yesterday and before you could say "Child of the Elder Blood" the comments were predictably swamped with variations of:

1. "I don't want to play a woman."
2. "The developer has caved to woke-ism."
3. If I have to play a woman, can't I at least play a hot one?"

The most generous version of the first comment goes along the lines "I see myself in my video game avatar and I just prefer it to be a man like me." Fine, if you've decided arbitrarily to limit yourself that way. Except you know who doesn't have the luxury of doing that? Women playing 95% of video games. And in the very, very rare game that offers up a female main playable character it's someone like Lara Croft in Tomb Raider who makes up for the sin of having brains and a personality by still being young enough and having big enough boobs to be objectified. Or Samus Aran in Metroid who looks like an androgynous robot until she takes her helmet off it the end.

If you don't want to play a woman, play those other 95% of games. Like the first three Witcher games. The gaming world is literally your fucking sausage-fest. Why the compulsion to throw your toys out of the crib at the prospect of one major game franchise letting women do what you do all the time? It's not like the universe ordained "there shall only ever be three more Witcher games and you will be forced to play a woman forevermore". If you want a prequel playing one of the other Witchers or a game where you can design your own character, then invest the money into developing it yourself.

As for "caving to woke-ism" I'll be generous again and assume this is coming from people who either didn't play the Witcher 3 or didn't understand any of the games or the books on which it is based. Ciri has always been the secondary protagonist. You actually get to play from her perspective for multiple segments of the Witcher 3. She's Geralt's child surprise, was raised with the Witchers, is the natural heir to their cultural legacy and is one of the few characters in the previous story who hasn't already had a complete character arc. There's lots to be excited about in exploring what she can actually do when her powers are fully developed and she has more control of them. The Witchers were always written as a community that was going extinct. Why not get excited and interested in the ways it which that community could possibly evolve and keep going instead?

Or, you know, you can just keep pretending that CDPR and Andrzej Sapkowski just included her for filler or to be a damsel in distress for Geralt. Except for literally everything that happens in the story.

Why is Geralt such an interesting character to play? In part, it's because he's a mensch. He's not a young hot shot - he's an older guy who adopts a girl and instead of seeing her as a delicate princess, takes her seriously and lets her train to do what he does. How do you get the best ending in Witcher 3? [Spoilers] You support Ciri and step back and let her handle her own problems.

For all the gamer bros out there who say what they enjoy it "seeing themselves in the character they are playing" why not at least try to see that character, which they claim to love, in themselves?

There are great male role-models out there for young men bemoaning the decline of masculinity. But you need to be willing to internalise the lessons they are trying to teach you instead of this knee-jerk kindergarten reaction of "ick, cooties".

November 27, 2024

Merch ideas for the Great Curtain Drop of 2025 already rolling in


Post by @smeagol_92055
View on Threads


?xmt=AQGzg1AXjXK3yymt-CnyI0afBSxQrGju3-SX30J7AoYfTw

Maybe "Spots and Tariffs" once RFK makes measles great again.



September 16, 2024

Fair's fair. Let's see what's in Kamala's mailbag.

If we're dropping all other news every time there's a credible assassination threat, how many have the Secret Service fielded for Kamala since she became VP?

July 26, 2024

In some senses a perfect pair. One has unresolved Daddy issues and the other has unresolved Mommy issues.

With the widespread availability of quality therapy for those with means, however, it feels unnecessary for all of this to be playing out on the national stage.

July 25, 2024

Am I late to realising how much Pete Buttigieg looks and speaks like Mr Rogers?

Something about the Midwestern wholesomeness.

Put on your inside shoes, change into a sweater, and talk sense to me Pete.

July 22, 2024

Lifelong career public servants don't do it for gratitude or loyalty.

They do it because they love their country and feel called to serve. They consider it the highest possible privilege to throw their shoulder against the great wheel for as long as they're able to stand. The ones that start out expecting recognition or thanks don't last 50 years.

I think the absolute last thing President Biden would ever say or think was that we should place any sense of obligation or loyalty to him personally over what we think objectively is best for the country. I think Joe Biden is a great president but I don't *owe* him personal loyalty over my loyalty to democracy, country and party.

Can we please put the back-stabbing/traitor/ratfucker/coup rhetoric to rest? It's not helpful, bordering on irresponsible in the current political climate, and it's not what Joe wants.

Let's recognise and respect his extraordinary public service, be inspired by it to redouble our efforts to defeat Trump, and honour the sacrifice that he's made in the spirit that he intended it. That's how we repay him for his service.

July 21, 2024

This is why we need to be able to openly discuss facts, regardless of who the nominee is.

I understand that a lot of people are genuinely heart-broken and shocked about this.

But I also think there's a number of people on (and no longer on) this site who have been trying to explain why they thought this was a likely outcome for several weeks now and they've been subjected to some pretty shocking abuse by their fellow DUers as well as targeted campaigns to get their accounts banned.

Meanwhile, the worst kind of conspiracy theories and weak arguments have been flourishing in the vacuum. I've watched as first many people stopped believing in polls, then the media, then our elected representatives and for some people even the democratic system of government. Some people are obviously still there.

And it's a shame, because if we'd been able to have this conversation and everyone had been able to make their cases, then today might well not have come as the inexplicable shock that it seems to be to some. And we would have a much shorter hill to be pushing the next candidate up without fighting against headwinds of cynicism fuelled by making this about a donor or media conspiracy/coup or drive to cancel votes when it was always simply about the majority of ordinary Democratic voters losing faith in the ability of a candidate that they love and respect to sustain the energetic messaging necessary to beat Donald Trump.

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 1, 2016, 12:13 AM
Number of posts: 4,783
Latest Discussions»meadowlander's Journal