Bleck

I'm sort of confused about the syntax of this statement so I'm not going to respond to it so that I don't misunderstand you the problem is not the presence of attractive characters, it's the definition of 'attractive' within the context of sexualization and male/female perspective the whole point isn't that 'female characters are too good looking', it's that 'female characters are designed solely to be good looking' there's nothing wrong with a girl having a pretty face, but if you're arguing that say, the example that Archaon just posted, is not pretty much just objectification of women, then you're just simply wrong

oh wait I see you just don't actually get it you think I'm saying that women somehow make the conscious choice to not like videogames because they are sexist, whereas what I'm actually saying is that most women are not interested in video games to begin with because they have never been something that our (sexist) society has ever deemed appropriate for women to enjoy women don't 'stop' playing videogames because they are sexist; they mostly just never start because society expresses that video games are not a thing for women to enjoy and society expresses this by primarily producing videogames that are designed to pander to the male fantasy

you think that the reason "women usually aren't interested by math" has nothing to do with sexism do you... do you actually know what sexism means this is irrelevant

I don't think anyone is actually saying this?

arguing that the only purpose women should serve is to be something that one finds aesthetically pleasing is degrading to women and therefore sexist and since the industry does exactly that thing currently, arguing that the industry does nothing wrong is the same as arguing that the industry does everything right in being sexist in short, supporting a sexist industry is a sexist action

most arguments that dismiss sexism in media use rationales that are primarily sexist; the easiest way to prove that someone is wrong about sexism is to point out the ways in which they are being sexist

this is a semantics scarecrow; my assumption is that the girls who do not play video games (a group that definitely exists) mostly do it for the same reason your assumption is that one girl saying that she doesn't have a problem with something (something that she later clarified was not even the case) means that it is unreasonable to claim that any other girl thinks any different we both made generalizations; the difference is that yours was sexist

another sexist action; assuming that all girls think alike luiza saying that she doesn't really care about huge cartoony tits does not magically mean that no girl ever cares about that thing ever response to this already summed up in this post

a little too late there, bub

a thread about whether or not overt and widespread sexualization that panders to men is sexist, and your valuable input is to point out whether or not you find something attractive I'm laughing so hard right now

nothing makes someone feel smart like pretending a problem isn't a problem how about this; we'll keep talking about whatever the fuck, and you can pick whatever problem you think is most important and go talk about it somewhere else that way, you don't have to deal with people you clearly think you're above, and nobody else has to deal with the stench of your high horse

also, to all the people arguing about 'strong female characters'; that's not the point

do I really have to explain why treating a medium that is not pornography like it is pornography is bad?

you realize that the reason behind there being 1 female gamer there are 100 male gamers is because the medium is sexist, right? your argument here is based on the idea that videogames don't need to be designed with women in mind, because women don't play videogames, and I find it baffling that anyone would have to stop and explain why that exact train of thought is sexist hey man I'm not the guy trying to argue that he knows better than women about what is sexist towards women

so you think that any woman who doesn't have ridiculously enormous breasts and wears a skin-tight leotard in every situation is ugly and this is your argument for why you aren't sexist

I'm fairly certain the whole point of the sexism in media thing is that the fantasy is clearly tailored towards men, to the point of making any women interested in whatever movie/game/comic uncomfortable to the point of not being able to enjoy it you know when you see clips of twilight, and it makes dudes uncomfortable because all of the "vampires" are chiseled, half-naked pretty boys who are clearly there to get all of the ladies hot and bothered? now imagine you're a woman, and 99.9% of comics/games/movies make you feel the exact same way if you claim that this is okay, you're sexist

Alright, I'll keep this stuff in mind. Also, is there some trick to jungling as Nautilus? It feels like I'm always hovering around 100 health if I start with cloth/5pots if I start with E, and if I start with W I can't even kill blue. I'm running armorpen reds, flat armor yellows, mr/lvl blues and armor pen quints. Masteries are all in the defensive tree.

"yeah sion is easy just stun him and he's nothing" Alright, so what if I'm solo-laning against Sion and I don't have a hard stun and/or I'm not running exhaust? I recently did this as Nautilus against a Sion that repeatedly walked into the turret to try and poke at me with autoattacks. I thought, okay, he's dumb, he's hitting me with autoattacks. I'll pull him and stun him under the tower. Every single time I did that, he stunned me and walked away. No big deal, I thought. I'm not dying, so what's the harm? So we're farming away for a good couple of minutes and around level 6 I think, okay. He's at 300 health and I'm at full health. If I can't bring him down with everything I have, something is wrong. So I pull him, stun him, hit him with Riptide and then hit him with my ult as he stuns me. The shield absorbed a big chunk of that, so now he's at 200 health. Okay, I think. There's no way he can outdamage me without his stun and with that little health while I'm at full and shielded. And then he turned on his ult. In the time it took for him to do 1200 damage to me, I couldn't kill him, despite him being at fucking 200 at the start of the fight. By the time I realized I was going to fucking die, I was down to about 300 and he was back up to at least 800; so I flash away towards my tower, but whoops, it doesn't matter because his stun is back up. He walks under the tower, hits me two more times and I die. He walks away from the tower without even taking damage because by then his shield was back up. So, yeah - maybe Nautilus damage is just too low, but I'm pretty sure Sion is bullshit. Maybe if I'm a farmed carry or something I can understand the whole 'just exhaust him and you'll do fine' bit, but I'm pretty sure in almost all cases that's bullshit. I can't fight him early on as anyone I play as (this isn't the only bad experience I've had against Sion), so he inevitably gets farmed, and I can't fight him later because whoops he has 150% lifesteal and three fucking Phantom Dancers. By all means, give me some more advice on how to deal with Sion, I really need it. But if your advice on how to play against anyone is just 'stun him and voila', seriously? Fuck off.

every time someone says this game is balanced I laugh and point at sion

new shen is overpowered feint + ki strike is just a little too good I think

stop playing as teemo

chz you wonderful man

I can, but it's very, very slow

I also think that if they got rid of all the issues, there wouldn't be an issue if at any point you had difficulty with a boss in SS it was likely because of the control scheme and not because of any actual difficulty