A Game And A Chat Ep 2: Jason Rohrer

By Nathan Grayson on January 28th, 2014 at 6:30 pm.

Jason Rohrer isn’t like other game designers. He isn’t really like them at all. From his early days eschewing videogame norms to make a game about the inevitably of death and loss in Passage to cooperative storytelling intrigue-o-tron Sleep Is Death to wild (and controversial) Minecraft “religious” experiment Chain World, Rohrer’s games aren’t escapism. They often make people uncomfortable. They often make him uncomfortable. The Castle Doctrine, then, might just be his most unsettling interactive experience yet. It’s about breaking, entering, stealing, murdering, and defending your virtual family from other players doing the same. As with Rohrer’s other games, it stems from deeply personal experiences, and we’re going to talk about that, the sensitive nature of many topics portrayed in his game, paranoia, gun ownership, game sales, and tons more. This one might be a bit more, er, heavy than the chat with Tim Schafer. But it should be incredibly fascinating as well. Join us live after the break, starting at 11:00 AM PT/7:00 PM GMT. And if you’d like, click over to my Twitch page and hop into the live chat. Discuss! Ask us things!

Update: We’re done! You can watch the whole thing below.


Watch live video from NathanGrayson on TwitchTV

And here’s a YouTube version for those who’d prefer it.

__________________

« | »

, , , , , , .

118 Comments »

Top comments

  1. Melonfodder says:

    Interesting game. Afaik it’s quite a bit about Rohrer’s feelings about himself having to be a provider and safekeeper of a family (belongings include: wife, child) as a white, straight guy. I disagree slightly with the criticisms currently lobbed at Castle Doctrine because the gameplay mechanics seem to indicate that the more you accumulate, the more paranoid you become – I’ve only had a look at the beta and while the concept is interesting, it’s not one that I put time into.

    The Steal Real Money contest where you can win a dog club, a gun store coupon or a door devil strike me as past tasteless and undermines the ideas of Castle Doctrine as criticism of the idea.

  1. KDR_11k says:

    But he also made Inside A Star Filled Sky which was fun and did the whole “first to explore a level gets to tag it through the internet” thing that No Man’s Sky is still only planning to do.

    • kris713 says:

      my neighbor’s mom makes $66 an hour on the internet. She has been without work for 5 months but last month her income was $16989 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site ..,.,..,.,.,., jobs80
      (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

    • Buttephon says:

      my friend’s step-mother makes $67 every hour on the laptop . She has been fired for 8 months but last month her check was $15271 just working on the laptop for a few hours. you can try here,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.Bay95.com

  2. Melonfodder says:

    Interesting game. Afaik it’s quite a bit about Rohrer’s feelings about himself having to be a provider and safekeeper of a family (belongings include: wife, child) as a white, straight guy. I disagree slightly with the criticisms currently lobbed at Castle Doctrine because the gameplay mechanics seem to indicate that the more you accumulate, the more paranoid you become – I’ve only had a look at the beta and while the concept is interesting, it’s not one that I put time into.

    The Steal Real Money contest where you can win a dog club, a gun store coupon or a door devil strike me as past tasteless and undermines the ideas of Castle Doctrine as criticism of the idea.

    • HadToLogin says:

      “the more you accumulate, the more paranoid you become” – Rusty DayZ in the nutshell.

    • footballstatue says:

      I like the idea of a game that portrays a message through it’s mechanics, rather than just pasting a message on top of some traditional gameplay

    • sirdavies says:

      How is it tasteless? The game is about a man protecting his family and home. The prize is protection equipment. It’s pretty coherent if you ask me. The game doesn’t seem to judge security obsessed people, but rather put you in their shoes. It doesn’t have a story per se or a “message” you can contrast it’s marketing strategy against.

      • Melonfodder says:

        Weapons as prizes is tasteless. There are also problems with the real caslte doctrine and by offering real weapons as a prize you are promoting the real thing. I didn’t say that the prizes weren’t thematically coherent, but I was rather weighing what he’s wanting to say with it.

        To be honest, after watching Rohrer I reckon me raising an eyebrow at his thoughts have to do with cultural differences – A swede living in the UK will have a very different perspective on home protection than an american will.

        EDIT: I’ve had my home broken into but it never left me with the philosophy Rohrer had. To be honest, I find him a tad disturbing and off-putting, like something is slightly off. But that’s hardly conducive to a discussion and a tad unfair.

        • HadToLogin says:

          You must find so many game tasteless, as weapons as prizes are usual rewards (indies, RPGs, even sports games, especially those manager games, where you look around for better weapons (called PLAYERS) to deal with enemy defenses).

          • Melonfodder says:

            You’ve failed to understand something here: the contest offered real items. A real dog club. Real gun store discount. Not fictional things. If they were fictional items I wouldn’t have a problem, you silly billy.

      • VelvetFistIronGlove says:

        The game is about a man protecting his family and home.

        The game is about a man breaking into other people’s homes, stealing their money and killing their wives and (optionally) children and dogs while also protecting his family and home.

        That’s why people get upset about it. If the burglary was all done by AI, I doubt there’d be much controversy.

  3. dethtoll says:

    Jason Rohrer is a fraud whose “games” rely on cheap emotional manipulation and player self-projection as opposed to having any depth, and his latest work is little more than a display of privileged white fear. Can we stop talking about douchey white brown-haired hipster dudes with five o’clock shadows and a critical imbalance of self-awareness:self-importance? They’ve dominated the indie gaming scene for too long because the gaming media keeps focusing on them.

    • Geebs says:

      Brown haired?

      • Drinking with Skeletons says:

        Brown-hairs should have their own schools!

      • The Random One says:

        Looks like he got the “indie devs are a homogenic group” and the “AAA game protagonists are a homogenic group” rants mixed up.

        E: Now I’m wondering what AAA game protagonists would make if they were indie devs. Rico Rodriguez makes a bizarre physics sandbox. Marcus Phoenix makes a hyper violent shooter and claims it’s an examination of violence but it clearly isn’t and he giggles when he plays it. Leon Kennedy makes a subdued horror game that’s a very clear metaphor for his nicotine addiction. Vito Scaletta makes The Castle Doctrine.

    • kwyjibo says:

      Yeah, because a lot of mainstream games explore privileged white fear don’t they?

      Rohrer does interesting stuff. His GDC game challenge entrants are always fun/funny/interesting. He released a DS game which was pretty cool – https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1443658586/diamond-trust-of-london I like how mechanics are the message, as opposed to crude preachings of serious games.

      • kwyjibo says:

        Also, Cameron Kunzelman’s argument for why he will never play The Castle Doctrine because he disagrees with the politics – http://thiscageisworms.com/2013/07/24/on-why-i-will-never-play-the-castle-doctrine/

        Enjoy your fucking filter bubble.

        • SillyWizard says:

          What an ignorant opinion piece. It must be nice to have the threat of immediate personal violence be so abstract that the only reasonable reaction be to have a nice chat about it. I guess it’s cool to not have a visceral reaction in the face of harm coming to your “loved” ones.

          What a dipshit.

          • tk421242 says:

            It does read as a very condescending piece.

          • The Random One says:

            Rather, I have the impression that the author of that post has the threat of violence so constant that attempt to respond to it with immediate violence would turn their life into a Tarantino movie.

            Would you not also try to talk to an armed invader in your home?

          • SillyWizard says:

            Frankly, I don’t know what I’d do. Not having any children, I really don’t know what I’d do if someone broke into my house and the reality was that my children and/or their mother might be seriously injured or killed in front of me.

            In that situation, an extremely reasonable response may be to attempt to subdue the intruder, in hopes that even if he killed me he would be so aghast at the situation that he would flee the scene, leaving the rest of my family alone.

            The only personal experiences I’ve had that are even remotely akin to the above scenario is are two in which

            1) When I was a child, my dog (as a puppy) was attacked by a violent stray while I was walking her. I did not hesitate to intercede and get my own flesh in the way of that dog’s mouth in order to protect my puppy.

            2) About 2 decades later, my neighbor’s dogs literally broke through my backyard fence and mauled my (different) dog. (The poor thing was a rescue dog I was trying to nurse back to health from a severe case of heart-worms, and the incident ended up killing her due to the excitement.) Again, I did not hesitate to wade into the pile of teeth and claws and extract my dog from the melee.

            I’m grateful that the only seriously violent situations I’ve found myself in so far have involved dogs. My gut instinct to put myself aggressively between my pets and their animal assailants leads me to believe that if my own child(ren) were at risk, I would very possibly do my best to inflict crippling injury on an intruder, at the very least. Again, I can’t know for sure, but it’s my best guess at the moment. And it’s an extremely upsetting idea, to me.

            I’m strongly opposed to capitol punishment; when considering joining the military, I opted to go with the Navy (in a desk-jockey capacity) because the idea of possibly killing someone in a firefight is so repellent. (Think of his family. He was just a soldier trying to serve his country, just like me. What if he has children? etc, etc.)

            That’s why I think this game sounds compelling. It will (hopefully) encourage people to come to grips with how awful a situation it would be to find yourself in, having a stranger in your home, threatening everything that makes up your life and your legacy.

            It makes me shudder.

          • WrenBoy says:

            There seems to be similar conversations everytime Rohrer comes up. If you look at how Rohrer himself naively describes the events which so impacted him its clear that the main threat his family faced was himself and not other people and/or their dogs.

            From memory, he left an infant in the middle of road so he could display some machismo to his neighbours (fortunately another neighbour had the presence of mind to actually protect Rohrers family and took the child out of harms way), he pepper sprayed his daughter and he almost provoked a fight with someone in a park, forgetting his baby was strapped to him and hidden under his hoodie. If the foolish man ever buys a gun I would fear more for his familys safety than any potential intruders.

            I think there is potential for decent art in these events but it would require more self awareness than Rohrer demonstrates (at least based on previous interviews with him which were conveniently written rather than just recorded).

    • Muzman says:

      That’s a little harsh dt. He’s clearly got some interesting talent for mechanics and interactivity in regards to player experience and some imagination to go along with it. I haven’t seen much to suggest he’s uncritical about these aspects of his games (or this game mainly), but he’s going to put it out there regardless.

      Your argument is really with the Indie game watching crowd who love the frisson of larger than life Warhols and Basquiats, Duchamps and assorted Turner Prize winners instead of mere artisan creativity.

    • tk421242 says:

      As soon as you point out the indie project by the openly gay native american I will check it out until then calling him a fraud might be a cheap shot on his abilities but attacking him because he is white is just a dick thing to do.

    • TheVGamer says:

      When “douchey white brown-haired hipster dudes with five o’clock shadows and a critical imbalance of self-awareness:self-importance” is the overwhelming demographic of indie devs, you’re bound to get a lot of them. I’d love to see a 50~ year old black lesbian indie developer from Botsuana get interviewed here but somehow I get the feeling I’ll be waiting quite a while for that one.

    • Reapy says:

      So weird how everyone reads into this game so much. My first impression of it was a clever little trap game. I’ve been enjoying that type of mechanic in games for a long while and can remember taking turns with a friend in duke nukem 3d defending specific areas with clever laser mine placement, or in splinter cell pandora tomorrow, how exciting it was to either set a series of clever traps and and detectors, and how fun it was as the thief to bypass them.

      I don’t know where all the drama about this game came from, and I honestly felt like the media basically forced him into adding all this extra crap into the meaning of the design because they kept pushing and demonizing him based on the theme of the game alone.

      • jrodman says:

        Don’t be ridiculous. The theme is very deliberately provocative. The matter for debate is whether it is triggering interesting experiences and dialogue or whether it’s just exploitative and gross.

        Based on things I’ve read, I assume it’s the latter, but I haven’t tried it or anything so you shouldn’t take my opinion very seriously. (Nor will I, online bastard simulators are not things I play, provocative or not.)

    • Shodex says:

      Eh. The game didn’t interest me because of any commentary on “white fear” and the like. What interested me was the interesting looking mechanics and gameplay. Setting traps/perfecting your labyrinth, I imagine myself giggling with glee everytime I see a player has tried to rob me but fell to my defenses.

  4. Chaz says:

    Erm, is he urinating against that tree?

  5. Paraquat says:

    This man is intensely creepy.

    • Meat Circus says:

      Seriously creepy.

      That explains why he doesn’t understand normal people’s revulsion at the Castle Doctrine.

      Isn’t giving airtime to a man who game is verging on rape apologism a little irresponsible and somewhat contrary to the standard RPS message of “don’t be a paranoid, misogynistic fuck”?

      • ChrisGWaine says:

        It’s great that the normal people have someone to speak for them in expressing their revulsion against this creepy man’s work.

        The condemnation of this game comes across like a mirror image of conservative/fundamentalist intolerance and attempts to suppress creative work.

        • Ich Will says:

          Criticism, no matter how intense does not equate to suppression. Don’t want to be criticised, don’t read the critics view of your work :) Simples.

      • Malarious says:

        Er… creepy how, exactly? Because his political and philosophical beliefs differ from yours? The Castle Doctrine isn’t a psychopath simulator (though you can play it like that, you don’t *need* to go out and murder people’s families) and even if it were it’s hardly more offensive than a hundred other games on the market.

        This is a guy who believes he has the right to kill an unknown, potentially dangerous entity who breaks into his home while he and his family are present. You might think that’s absurd, and that’s fine. But it doesn’t make him creepy. I’m not sure if you’ve lived in a dangerous neighborhood, but the amount of fear you feel just walking home is on an entirely different level. I grew up raised by a single mom in an exceptionally poor neighborhood. Our house was broken into and vandalized a few times a year. There was a murder across the street when I was 9, and after that we moved back in with my grandparents.

        Obviously my own experiences let me relate to Rohrer’s beliefs better than someone who’s never been truly scared for their life, but it’s a fact that there are people out there who would be fully willing to kill you, even if you’ve done nothing wrong. If i’d been sick one of the days our house was broken into, the robber would’ve found me. Would he kill a child who posed no threat? Maybe not. But maybe I’d remember his face. Maybe I’d seen him around the neighborhood before. Maybe, maybe, maybe — you simply can’t understand what the other guy is thinking in a situation like that. If someone broke into my home while I’m there, there’s a chance they’d be willing to kill me. Maybe that chance is 1 in 10. Maybe 1 in 100, or 1000. The odds don’t matter. When it comes to protecting myself, I’m not going to take any risks. Simply by breaking into someone’s home, the robber has already forgone his innocence. He’s broken his social contract. Anything that happens after that is his fault alone.

        • Muzman says:

          Well that doesn’t hold up to any moral or ethical argument really. Or even a legal one except in a few created instances. It’s not even good security logic. It’s a completely artificial simplification of very complex situations. The ceding on nuance to an absolute. And that’s precisely what people have an issue with about the whole debate. (not that I think he’s creepy)

        • jrodman says:

          “When it comes to protecting myself, I’m not going to take any risks”
          Not sure if this is your actual thinking or a description of a line of thought, but either way it is bankrupt. There is always risk, and an obsession with trying to remove risk by using deadly force is a mental problem.

          If risk your concern, cars, stairs, and ownership of a weapon capable of deadly force are all much higher risks than unknown intruders.

  6. mechabuddha says:

    Can someone please explain something to me? I’ve noticed a lot of vitriol towards this guy, specifically in regards to Castle Doctrine. I only have a passing knowledge of the game, but apparently it involves breaking into homes to steal things, with incidental murdering of the residents. Sounds horrible, right? But what about DayZ or Rust, which involves holding random strangers at gunpoint, stealing their stuff, with murdering of the random passerby? These are games that seems to be loved, or at least respected, by a large number of people. So my questions is: what’s the difference? Why do people feel differently about these games?

    • The Random One says:

      I don’t share the vitriol, but the differences seem to be:

      1) Bastard Simulators do not require you be a bastard, merely allow you to do so. Doctrine’s entire point is that you’re a bastard trying to outbastard every other bastard in the land, until you get the Most Bastard Award, which consists of all the stuff you stole from lesser bastards’ houses.
      10) Bastard Simulators deliberately take place in fictionalized, post apocalyptic settings to explore the lack of infrastructure and centralized authority. Doctrine takes place in a (highly abstract but still recognizable) regular modem day setting, implying its end goal is, if not acceptable, at least common.
      11) You can play as a lady bastard in Bastard Simulators, or if you can’t it’s due to technical or budgetary limitations. You can’t play as a lady bastard in Doctrine, or even as a gay bastard, because its artistic direction includes the idea that the roles of bread-winner and family protector are only understandable to straight men.

      • SillyWizard says:

        I really think that the goal is to drive home that point that bastardy is bad, by forcing the player to be a particular type of bastard.

        I thought straight white men were the only safe target for vilification, anyway…?

        • The Random One says:

          Personally I have that feeling too – the fact that the aggressors and the defenders are the same people seems to push things towards that direction. It’s not so much the Powerful White Men defending themselves against the unfathomable Other as it is Clueless White Man hurting each other because they’re trapped in a world where there is no one else for them to direct their macho posturing towards (except women are children, which of course belong to other White Men and so violence against them is violence against the Man that owns them). But just because the piece intends to say it doesn’t mean the piece actually says it, and Roher himself seems to espouse the views that would lead to the kind of ultraparanoid state his game appears to be a fable against. I ‘onno, maybe it’s kind of method acting for him. Method game design.

      • Stellar Duck says:

        I would add, based on some stuff I’ve read that Rohrer has said, Castle Doctrine is also a much more ideological game, promoting the idea that anyone who trespasses on your property forfeits their life. He sometimes comes across as a bit of a nutter, at least to this European who in the event of a break in would probably just sleep through it or slinker out and have a ciggie while people nick my defunkt TV. Unless they try and steal my books! Then there will be hell to pay!

        Anyways, back on track: I think much of the vitriol stems from Rohrers uncompromising stance on real life murder. For all the murders in DayZ you can’t claim the game is promoting banditry and in fact has been trying to find a way to balance it since the start. Remember bandit skins anyone?

        • Snidesworth says:

          I had a similar reaction when I listened to the HAWP people interview him a while back, as did the duo conducting it. On the one hand I can understand his reaction to the dog attack and the resulting feelings he had about protecting his family, but on the other hand he seems to have no compunctions about killing any person who is trespassing in his home.

          http://hawpcast.podbean.com/2013/08/24/keepin-it-real-with-jason-rohrer/

          • Stellar Duck says:

            It’s not like I would have any compunctions kicking a dog or possibly killing it if someone was being attacked. It wouldn’t need to my wife though. That goes for anyone who was attacked by a dog and circumstances were dire.

            It’s his home invasion paranoia I take objection to.

      • tk421242 says:

        You just assume he is straight. Perhaps the man you play is bisexual and has gay partners outside of his ‘traditional’ marriage.

        • The Random One says:

          Don’t shoot the messenger. Plus, I’m looking at how the game is presented. A bisexual man that is currently in a stable marriage with a woman is, for its intents and purposes, effectively a heterosexual man.

          • jrodman says:

            Although this may seem “straightjacketed” *cough*, this is actually the pretty traditional trajectory for bisexuals in a modern context. As young people, late teens, early 20s they may identify as bisexual, but as the years go by, they tend to identify more and more as either gay or straight.

            This may be breaking down over time (I think it is.. based on very nonscientific personal knowledge), but it’s still a clear trend.

      • Geebs says:

        100) the stuff about breaking into somebody’s house and menacing their wife and child, which casts those characters as some combination of victim and baggage. It might be supposed to be some sort of commentary on gaming, but that’s kind of just too gross to ever be able to get away with it.

      • jrodman says:

        I don’t understand your numbered list WHY DOES IT GO TO ELEVEN!11??

    • SillyWizard says:

      Also isn’t the Castle Doctrine’s point that this sort of Possibly-Benefit-Myself-at-the-Cost-of-All-Others is dangerous and wrong?

      I’m seriously confused here.

      • vivlo says:

        i don’t understand why everyone doesn’t read the game that way. Except if he (Rohrer) expressively says in his interview something along the lines of, “i wish the world would look like my game more” ? or maybe people only expect games to give them a role they feel as righteous or enviable ? But come on, in this day and age ?

    • thecommoncold says:

      At the risk of coming across as a troll: Because he’s conservative-libertarian, and fairly open about it.

    • Muzman says:

      The name is a red flag/dog whistle of sorts all by itself, referring to the American (in some states) legal privilege to assume a trespasser is hostile and use any force necessary to deal with them without repercussion.
      It’s a politically divisive notion.

      The game actually is a paranoid white fantasy simulator in a lot of ways. I don’t mean that in a judgmental fashion necessarily, but it is set up that you are a Man charged with defending his Property (including wife and child) from Evil Doers who want to get in and take it/murder them.
      This re-iterates the oft used conservative individualist narrative of white male heroism against Bad People, the constant attention to last resorts and worst case scenarios (which I would call bad civics trying to pretend it’s good and rational) which keeps a lot of terrible politicians in business and a lot of bad laws on the books if you ask me.
      But that’s kind of the point really. It’s an uncomfortable and divisive scenario to represent.
      That’s different to fantastic post-apocalyptic stuff from the outset.

      Some of the mechanics of value in the game add to the unsettling implications and some might have a reaction to that. Like you’re supposed to righteously defend your stuff like a good Man. But you’re rewarded for going out and violating other people as much as possible. Your stuff becomes almost meaningless economic items, including family, just there to taunt other players in to attempting to violate you.

      So these things may turn up in open ended survival games, but, as mentioned, they aren’t expressedly designed around it. Rohrer himself has expressed sympathy with the paranoid survivalist viewpoint (my words, not his). Gun ownership, male roles etc I tend to think it’s more about him exploring his own feelings and thoughts on the matter. Others are not so sure. I think much about the game inevitably reveals the ultimate futility of such an outlook on the universe (at least partly because that’s inherent to the whole concept anyway), It’s not really clear if Rohrer would agree with me on that.
      I think those things are the nub of the controversy anyway.

      • Reapy says:

        It is interesting how people really take on the role of their video game characters. I never really take on my role of my character in games I play. It is never me that is playing, just a character I, or the designer, has made. I don’t feel like myself or the people in the game are commiting what the THEME of the game is providing, but judge the ‘bastard level’ of a person based on their actions within the framework of the game, such as team killing or other such things.

        I also find it funny that whenever a modern setting is used for fiction, its immediately placed as some sort of social commentary, when it might not be, while fantasy and sci fi, which often times ARE, it is not recognized.

        A game like castle doctrin to me seems like a trap and puzzle game. I make a puzzle that people have to solve in my house, and then go into other people’s houses to defeat their puzzle. I don’t really get this whole ‘it is a white power fantasy’ thing here, it seems like a huge stretch, let alone where did the ‘white’ guy thing come from?

        Maybe I just wear my immersion hat when it is single player, as soon as you have multiplayer in anything it goes into another category.

        Whatever it is, the game is somehow provoking comments that just seem way off center than what you typically see for a game, it continues to baffle me.

        • Muzman says:

          Yeah, I do find it a little weird in this case. The guy clearly likes to prod peoples emotions in particular ways. And after that, as you say, it’s a sort of competitive puzzle game which you don’t need to be a gun-stroker wired on uppers to enjoy.
          I think it’s partly the things he’s said about it. It’s like you can watch Death Wish as a diverting bit of revenge exploitation, but finding out Michael Winner actually thinks vigilantism isn’t such a bad idea changes the picture somewhat. That said I didn’t get the impression Rohrer is a wildly articulate philosopher on these matters or was taking a hard line, but a smart guy sort of blundering through these thoughts and feelings, often for the first time, and that’s how he does things. It’s all very arty.

  7. thecommoncold says:

    The criticism that you can only play a man is baffling to me. The perspective Rohrer wants to portray is one of a man protecting wife and kids and robbing/killing the wives and kids of others. Why he should be expected to portray other perspectives is beyond me.

    Consider Cara’s article (a few weeks back?) discussing Ute. In that, you played a woman with a particular sexual preference and (for lack of a better word) sexual mission. AFAIK, you couldn’t play lesbian Ute, nor could you play as a man. Was Ute worse for it? Was there an outcry there?

    The idea that we must portray or provide for every possible perspective or lifestyle in creative works so that everyone feels “included” is getting tiresome.

    • SillyWizard says:

      Getting?

      It’s beyond tiresome, and it’s ridiculous. I don’t see how it’s different than demanding that novels be rewritten numerous times to have every race and creed be represented as the protagonist. I’m entitled to see Bella Whatsit portrayed by a Middle Eastern man! I want gay arab vampire sex now!

      Of course, that’s a silly expectation. As would be having a Dagny Taggart replaced by an effeminate man (as she’s a masculine woman), or Raskolnikov as an Autistic Gypsy Roma chef.

      • Ich Will says:

        What if nearly all books were written by black lesbians for black lesbians…. I wonder how you would feel then. I’m guessing you wouldn’t show much interest in reading to be honest, but what if you just adored it… what if you consumed all black lesbian literature eagerly, gobbling up every book you could. Would you not even once wonder why you couldn’t be represented in a book, a straight white man?

        • thecommoncold says:

          Not buying the correlation there. No one is saying people can’t tell those stories if they want.

          The solution then would seem to be encouraging other stories to be told, but denigration or criticism of those who decide to stick with the “prevalent” story is hardly the right means to the end. But that seems to be at least part of the driving force for the criticism of Rohrer.

          • Ich Will says:

            Silly wizard expressly wrote that he finds it tiresome that people who are not well represented in games ask to be represented in games. He used literature to make a false equivalence. I was explaining that his equivalence was false and why – because literature already pretty much represents every group of people fairly – so I’m glad you didn’t buy the correlation, I was the one pointing out it was stupid.

            For the record though, If black lesbian literature was dominant in the market, and books came out where the story did not depend on the protagonist being black, female or lesbian but she was incidently a black lesbian, calling the author out for reusing a tired old trope that is way overused is valid criticism. See my post above for the difference between criticism and suppression of your story you want to tell.

            Bringing it back to Rohrer, is your point that he does not believe that women defend their homes or can be the primary earner? Because, to me, gender seems incidental to the idea that violence may be used to defend your home and therefore the gender of the player is irrelevant, thus the decision to cast it as a male is, well dull and doing nothing to encourage women to play games. I wonder if his game will feature black, hispanic and asian character too? He could allow you to choose the gender of your spouse with 2 lines of code (if he’s halfway competent), so the decision to not allow this is surely making a point? What is that point?

          • thecommoncold says:

            You’re misrepresenting me. My point was that Rohrer decided to place the player in the role of a man defending his home and family while pillaging the homes and families of others. It is “This is what it is like to be a white man doing X,” just like Ute is “This is what it is like being a white woman doing Y.”

            Whether or not Rohrer thinks women can or cannot defend the home is irrelevant to the argument, because Rohrer specifically decided to focus on just the one scenario. And that’s not wrong to do so, even granting that there are innumerable scenarios where the roles are be reversed. He didn’t want to include those, and he shouldn’t have to. So what if adding in a male/female or race toggle is easy? Is that sufficient reason to be forced or expected to include it?

            As for “tired old tropes” as criticism, sure, that’s fine. Nor am I averse to criticism in general. The issue is that I get the feeling that the criticism here is not against “tired old tropes” but rather a failure to embrace the political correctness agenda.

          • darkChozo says:

            @Ich Will

            I don’t think criticizing the individual work is the right way to go there; it’s a systemic problem, and you’re not going to solve it without a systemic solution. It’s like criticizing an FPS because you’d rather it be an RPG, or trying to fix your broken legal system of choice by complaining about a traffic ticket.

            IMO, the conversation about women in video games tends to get tainted by focusing on individual games too much. The issue isn’t that game X has an alpha male protagonist and flat, scantily clad women, it’s that video game protagonists are overwhelmingly male and that video game women are overwhelmingly scantily clad and flat. There’s no easy solution to that problem, but trying to figure out whether game X is sexist or not certainly hasn’t been getting us far.

          • Ich Will says:

            I asked you questions, I don’t think at any point I tried to represent you.

            @darkChozo I completely agree but surely the best way to get heard is to level fair criticism at individual games. No-one who should be listened to is actually saying this or any other game should be changed. They are saying, “I don’t like this because this”. If any particular game maker doesn’t care about commercial success, the world is his artistic oyster and the best of british to them, but if a game maker want’s to be a commercial success then he needs feedback from his market. That this particular piece of feedback is becoming so commonplace, SillyWizard finds it tiresome, isn’t the point that by not taking this criticism into account is probably damaging a games sales?

          • thecommoncold says:

            Fair enough, my apologies.

            Edit and response: Speaking for myself, what I find tiresome is the insistence of having all perspectives accounted for so that no one feels “left out,” not just WRT The Castle Doctrine but games in general.

            I’m thinking back to things like the Everyone is Bi solution in DA2. This maybe worked for being more inclusive of other lifestyles, but at the cost of what I felt to be believability and consistency of character for the NPCs, particularly on subsequent play-throughs. Should that be the norm? Is it suddenly wrong to do otherwise and limit the perspective so as to focus on a single particular theme or interaction?

            I’m also not certain the criticism I am seeing on the subject reflects as feedback to Rohrer that he ought to include other options. It may be more a reflection on a combination of two issues: our hyper-sensitive “can’t offend anyone” culture, and the design-by-committee phenomena brought about by recent increases in open development. Now those are things I’m tired of.

          • SillyWizard says:

            Silly wizard expressly wrote that he finds it tiresome that people who are not well represented in games ask to be represented in games.

            That’s funny, I don’t recall doing any such thing. I have no compunctions about games having whatever kind of character the developer wants to include.

            My problem is when people feel the right to demand that a developer include things/characters/lip-service that the developer is not inclined to include.

            If you (or anyone) feels like any medium (be it games, books, movies, whatever) does not include your…demographic or whatever, there’s nothing preventing you from doing your own thing and expressing yourself.

            And you know what? When you do that, you can tell everyone who wants you to replace your intersex Samoan midget paraplegiac with Chuck Norris to fuck off.

            Just like Rohrer has the right to tell all of us to fuck off when we ask to play as flowers to womans or whatever it is people are demanding.

            Good for him.

          • Ich Will says:

            That’s always the last grasp of a failed argument – go make your own thing and be disgustingly rude to people who criticise it. You rely on people every day of your life who are employed and you rely on them doing their jobs well. If you truly believe what you are saying, then you must accept every incompetence, every bad decision, every decision that works against your interests. Don’t like that your supermarket doesn’t stock a product you like, go make your own supermarket. Don’t like that your favourite icecream reduced the dairy content, too bad, go make your own icecream. Do you see how your argument is flawed yet? Not every computer game consumer wants to make computer games. Not every computer game consumer can make a game. Our society relies on people specialising into their areas. If we didn’t we wouldn’t have computers in the first place. So as a cameraman I work hard to make the very best footage I can for whoever I am working for at the time. Does that mean that when my producer tells me a shot is too blurry that I can tell him that it’s my artistic vision and that if he doesn’t like it he should go shoot his own footage? Nope, because that way lies madness and ultimately me not selling my footage.

            Your market, the people who purchase and the people who consume your product have the right to critical thought about it. They have the right to voice it. You have the right to make whatever you want, but ultimately people will criticise it and you if you show it in public. That is the way of the world and you need to grow up and understand this.

          • SillyWizard says:

            Comparing a guy creating his own computer program for his own personal enjoyment — which he just happens to be sharing with people on the off chance they might enjoy it too — is not in the same ball park as a person producing poor quality at work. Even further removed, considering this is a piece of non-vital code intended for entertainment purposes.

            If I go to a supermarket and they don’t carry what I want, I go to a different supermarket. Happens all the time. I currently have no few than 3 local markets I visit for all of my weekly staples. I doubt that’s a particularly uncommon happenstance.

            Your market, the people who purchase and the people who consume your product have the right to critical thought about it. They have the right to voice it. You have the right to make whatever you want, but ultimately people will criticise it and you if you show it in public.

            Are you Rohrer’s market? Are you buying his game? Have you played it? Do you have any understanding of what his goal is? Are you being critical or are you trying to turn his project into what you want it to be, completely irrespective of what the creator intends?

            You talk about growing up. An important aspect of being a grown-up is understanding that the world isn’t here to cater to you.

      • tk421242 says:

        @SillyWizard You just referenced Atlas Shrugged so you will now be cast aside and forever dismissed in all future internet conversations!

        • SillyWizard says:

          Wow, you know what book that character is from. Congratulations.

          • tk421242 says:

            I always found it amusing that my ex-wife described herself as having the business mentality of Dagny Taggart but absolutely despised the book.

      • darkChozo says:

        The issue comes up in video games more often because video games often have the “main character” as a almost-blank avatar that theoretically represents the player within the game world directly. Even a flat audience surrogate like Bella still has more character than Man With Family (or Man With Gun or Man With Swords And Magic And Magic Swords or what have you).

        It’s also a bit more sticky here because suggesting that being a man is core to the fantasy of defending your family is… problematic. Being a particular man defending a particular family from a particular threat feels okay, being in an abstract situation where the woman can never be the one taking action is a bit weird.

        • SillyWizard says:

          Being a man is core to Rohrer’s experience, and core to what he’s exploring in this game. That’s all that needs to be said about it. Rohrer is making this thing for himself, and he’s doing it the way he wants to do it.

          If people want to give him money to participate, sweet. If not, fine, whatever, go play Ute, which an earlier commentor noted is something equally sexist, but more socially acceptable

          Better yet, go show us how everything-to-everyone your game is. I’d love to see such genius in action.

          • darkChozo says:

            Aw, that’s boring. What’s the point of the Internet if not to meaninglessly argue over bits of pop culture?

            On Ute, to be honest I’m not sure if the game had much of a point beyond being a bit subversive (sex! in video games! the horror!). Maybe that’s just because I don’t really see that particular but if gender politics too often. It’d actually probably be a bit more interesting if it did have both genders available, what with the whole double standard thing.

            And for what it’s worth, I don’t think the game is outright offensive so much as it’s toeing the line somewhat. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing; at least it keeps things interesting.

    • joa says:

      Indeed, having gender, race and so on switchable at choice seems like it would remove a lot of meaning from some games where these attributes are part of the story. In a heterosexual household do you think it is the woman who is going to be defending the man and children from home invaders?

      • The Random One says:

        Clearly you don’t know my mom.

      • Ich Will says:

        “In a heterosexual household do you think it is the woman who is going to be defending the man and children from home invaders?”

        Why wouldn’t she? You think she’s not “strong” enough to pull a trigger while pointing a weapon in the correct direction. You think she’s not passionate enough about her children’s safety to clock someone on the head with a frying pan? You think that she doesn’t care enough about a pile of her cash to call the police herself.

        Ask yourself, why do you believe that a woman wouldn’t defend her home.

        • joa says:

          Well I think a lot of people would hesitate before pulling the trigger on a robber… Of course a woman would do anything to protect her children – but what I’m saying is not that woman would just sit there helplessly, but that the man would be taking the lead in going to confront whoever was in the house. Do you really find that hard to imagine? If you were in that situation would you be letting your wife go in front of you to deal with the robber?

          • Stellar Duck says:

            I’d be making sure we both went outside and let them nick our stuff. Seeing as they probably don’t have any weapons and I don’t have any I don’t see no reason to escalate it to a violent clusterfuck. Easier to go outside and ring the cops and pop over the people next door.

          • Ich Will says:

            What makes you think she would let me go ahead of her?

            I’m not deliberately trying to be a dick, I’m just trying to make the point that household role is not related to gender – roughly half of all married men are in relationships where their partner is more suited to dealing with a household invasion, whether that be an orderly evacuation with the kids or a violent confrontation. These “gender roles” only hold us back, as a family, a nation or a species.

          • SillyWizard says:

            Where does that “roughly half” statistic (to grant that term more authority than I expect it’s due in this case) come from?

            Typically, men are physically stronger than women. My physically strong and relationship-dominating girlfriend still sends me to investigate strange noises in the middle the night. Fortunately, so far it’s always been the cats.

            She’s totally the head of our household when it comes to a lot of things. But it’s simply not reasonable to expect her to confront an intruder when I’m both better equipped for it physically and psychologically.

            Ha ha, this is so ridiculous. With rare exceptions, men are by nature more violent than women, and do better in violent situations than women.

            This isn’t new. It’s not sexist. It’s how we are physically constructed.

            I don’t know why I keep finding myself responding to these comments….

          • joa says:

            Ich Will, what makes me think she would let you go ahead of her? Well here’s a question – which do you think evolution favoured, the cave woman who rushed out ahead of her partner to fight the wolves, or the one who stayed back and let her partner take care of it? Which one’s genes do you think survived longer and became the dominant ones?

          • Emeraude says:

            Well here’s a question – which do you think evolution favored, the cave man who rushed out ahead to fight the wolves, or the one that stayed inside ?

            Which do you think evolution favored, the one who rushed out ahead to fight the wolves, or the one who looked like he would ?

            I love how linguistically we’ve come to represent evolution like a force with – hints of will even -instead of a process.
            Says a lot if anything…

          • WrenBoy says:

            @Emeraude, IchWill

            Joas slightly mixed up understanding of natural selection notwithstanding I think you are overstating the case here a bit. Its fantasy to say that women are as physically strong as men. Some women will be stronger than some men but on average men are stronger and there is a clear distinction.

            Cultural norms exist too and these certainly create expected behaviour in men but that doesnt mean the underlying assumption that men are physically stronger is false.

          • jrodman says:

            We have a lot of weird ideas about evolution in pop culture.

          • joa says:

            Evolution favours the man who goes out to fight. Because then his children and partner get to live on and pass on his genes. What’s so difficult about this to understand?

          • WrenBoy says:

            @joa
            I know what you trying to say but you are phrasing it in an unfortunate way. On top of that I dont think the phrase “dominant gene” means what you think it does.

          • Emeraude says:

            @Wrenboy

            That’s not a slightly mixed up understanding, that’s a rather profound misunderstanding, based on misunderstood points of Darwinism magnified to fit a posteriori an ideological position. The fact that Darwin is still remembered in pop culture but Kropotkin isn’t says a lot about what people want a theory of evolution to say, as opposed to the ones science has developed.

            @joa

            It all depends on the statistical occurrence of death. If the guy who goes to the wolf dies more often than not, then the guy who stays inside will be the one who’ll have more chances to pass on his gene. If the guy survives most of the time then he will be the one.
            Past a certain level of uncertainty, we’ll see that people that *look* like they would go to the wolf but won’t would on average have a higher chance to pass their genes.

            Then alternatives would develop.

          • WrenBoy says:

            @Emeraude

            Yeah, I see what you are saying but I think you are giving the idea more consideration than it deserves.

            For starters, evolutionary psychology is a bit of a fools game. To take this silly example, my uneducated guess is that on top of the information you suggest we would also have to know the frequency with which wolves attacked, what the consequence of no action would be, whether such attacks were regular enough over a long enough period for a tendency for a particular behaviour to be selected for and whether or not subsequent changes in the environment did not select for adaptations which make the optimal caveman responses to wolf attacks irrelevant. Since its a fairly pointless debate anyway why care about more than the correct terminology?

            Secondly, even with the theory you suggest its clearly still the guys job to deal with or present himself as capable of dealing with potentially violent threats although I admit that Ive no idea about what you mean by “alternatives developing”.

            Thirdly, ignoring the silly theory of evolution sidetrack, its just a fact that men have more muscle mass than women and that, for whatever reason, are also currently more conditioned to be violent than women (but of course women are also frequently capable of both strength and violence). I dont see why the conversation has to continue on further than that.

            Finally Im not sure why you bring Kropotkin into it. Im certainly not saying hes a scientific lightweight but hes no Darwin. If I was suggesting a pop culture icon I would rather he replaced it would be Marx.

          • Emeraude says:

            @ WrenBoy:

            It’s not a matter of improper terminology, but improper processing. The point of the examples was to hopefully show *how* the idea of automatically deciding that “the man who goes outside to fight the wolf” is the one who has the highest chance of passing on his genes is actually ridiculous.

            If anything, it’s the reverse approach that should have been taken: not protecting from harm the women capable of producing an offspring in a context where they are rarer than other providers is the surest way to ensure that no gene will be passed on.
            Which is a quite different proposition – if only because it has no bearings on the quality of the defenders past that they are not expected to bear children.

            I was bringing Kropotkin specifically because his theory of evolution is opposing the ideology supporting the improper use of “survival of the fittest” as survival of the strongest that we see so often in pop culture – which is why I believe, it never had any success there.

            Agreed on Marx though.

          • WrenBoy says:

            Regarding evolution if you are saying that his idea is ridiculous because all such evolutionary psychology stories are ridiculous then I agree completely. If not then his story is just as reasonable and ridiculous as any other although of course it certainly wouldnt be the rock on which Id build an argument.

            Getting back to Rohrer himself and his work, I think that while in general its reasonable to expect more games from either a female or gender neutral perspective, it shouldnt be a big deal for Rohrer as a small time indie developer specializing in very personal games to release a game giving a uniquely male perspective. Machismo in general is a topic which has produced good art and which has potential for producing good art in games. Games which should get more stick are less personal games with bigger budgets ( which conveniently includes the overwhelming majority of game sales ).

            My only issue, such as it is, with the Castle Doctrine is the actual angle he took when looking at this phenomenon. He doesnt seem to grasp that he is the threat to his own family, not some guy who wants to nick his tv or who owns a dog with terrifyingly large testicles. The mechanics of the game (from what I understand, I should say I havent actually played it) force you to see your neighbours as your enemy and bizarrely encourage you to do to your enemy what you want to avoid being done to you. For such an apparently personal game, its so morally vacant it could be interpreted as a critique on such extreme paranoia but I dont get that at all from the interviews Ive read.

          • Ich Will says:

            You (nearly) all have the weird idea that confronting an intruder is the sensible option. Hate to be the one to point it out to the guys talking about mens physical strength – put a weapon in the intruders hand, all that strength, equalised. Whether that weapon be a knife, gun or baseball bat – your finely honed physique counts for nothing.

            I have insurance. I have many ways out of my house. I will protect my family by removing them from the premises, getting them to the neighbours and calling the police. Welcome to survival 101, do not confront unless you have literally no other options, especially not to save some stuff. I wonder if the “men” in this post who talk about them being better suited to dealing with a home invasion because they are stronger than their wives are the ones who’s wifes are perhaps more suited to taking the lead in that situation – the wife and kids escape out the back door, wife calls police and insurance. Man refuses to listen to wife because “has something to prove” and grabs a knife, heads downstairs and the police find him stabbed with his own knife. He is still in hospital when the new tv gets delivered by insurance company.

            Oh and Sillywizard, the 50% stat came from the idea that I see both genders as equally able to make intelligent decisions. You clearly see one gender as superior to the other when it comes to making decisions under pressure, which says an awful lot about you.

          • WrenBoy says:

            @Ich Will
            You are backtracking quite a bit now and are no longer making the claim that women are just as well suited to “violent confrontation” as men. That claim is a naive fantasy and is what I responded to.

            I certainly never said violent confrontation was the optimal strategy. Ive consistently and repeatedly said the opposite.

          • Ich Will says:

            I’ll just quote myself from my original post:

            “You think that she doesn’t care enough about a pile of her cash to call the police herself.”

            And from my second post:

            “whether that be an orderly evacuation with the kids”

            And my third:

            “You (nearly) all have the weird idea that confronting an intruder is the sensible option.”

            So my posts were never all about violent confrontation – and your posts was the reason I stuck a (nearly) in there. You are a single lone voice in the madness however, (EDIT: Scrub that, it was Emeraude who was the single sane voice in the madness, I couldn’t be bothered to look up your posts to see whether you are spouting pseudoscientific nonsense of if you have a reasonable point because, as I point out both above and below, weapons make that element of the conversation redundant.) literally every other person in this thread was saying that the only way to respond to an intruder in your house was a violent confrontation, which is why I concluded that every person except for you (EDIT: Emeraude and you) could benefit from someone elses decision making skills and probably should defer to someone who’s first priority isn’t to place themselves into danger because I can only assume that they believe “that’s what a real man would do”.

            Oh and by the way, not once have I spoken about men and women being on an equal footing with strength alone – yes, men have more testosterone and yes that makes men develop larger, stronger muscles. Use the lever effect, for example by swinging a long weapon – focus the energy for example by using a sharp or pointed weapon, use stored chemical energy, for example by firing a gun and the difference in physical prowess between men and women melts into insignificance. Which is rather the point of weapons, isn’t it. It doesn’t matter how hard you can hit someone when they can kill you with a flick of their wrist. Then it becomes all about how quickly and precisely you can react, and I wonder how many of the “men” in this thread have ever actually swung a weapon with intent to maim before. I doubt any of them have, which will make them slow, unsure and weak (otherwise boxers wouldn’t have to train) compared to what is presumably a criminal in their homes, who will use intelligence and a mindset already focused on fight or flight to attempt to get that critical blow in first.

          • WrenBoy says:

            For the record here is what I actually said (with added bolding):

            If you look at how Rohrer himself naively describes the events which so impacted him its clear that the main threat his family faced was himself and not other people and/or their dogs.

            From memory, he left an infant in the middle of road so he could display some machismo to his neighbours (fortunately another neighbour had the presence of mind to actually protect Rohrers family and took the child out of harms way), he pepper sprayed his daughter and he almost provoked a fight with someone in a park, forgetting his baby was strapped to him and hidden under his hoodie. If the foolish man ever buys a gun I would fear more for his familys safety than any potential intruders.

            My only issue, such as it is, with the Castle Doctrine is the actual angle he took when looking at this phenomenon. He doesnt seem to grasp that he is the threat to his own family, not some guy who wants to nick his tv or who owns a dog with terrifyingly large testicles.

            You are on stronger ground when you say that its better to avoid confrontation than when you say how dangerous women would be when weaponised. Just like Rohrer they would be a risk to their own family to an extent which far outweighs the very slight possibility of actually being needed to defend their family. By trying to shoehorn womens capacity for violence into the discussion you are falling into the same trap as Rohrer, ie not realising that, in his attempts to protect his family he is actually endangering them.

            As an aside, I confronted a burgler once. We ended up having a bit of a laugh about the situation and I politely asked said intruder not to make a habit of it. I would say she was about 13. I dread to think what would have happened if I had a Rohrer/Tony Martin mentality. Or the mentality of a weaponised mother for that matter.

      • Emeraude says:

        What’s an heterosexual household ? Do I have to understand that the fact most men from my family have calm and contemplative demeanor with a penchant for talking things over, while women have a short fuse and a tendency to violence, especially physical, make it a non-heterosexual household composed of heterosexual members ?

        • joa says:

          A heterosexual household is one man and one woman living together, possibly with children. I can’t comment on your family dynamics, but I will ask you this. Would you let a woman you know go and confront some violent person, or would you take charge?

          • Emeraude says:

            I would more than probably take charge. But then I’m a woman with a short fuse.

            Woe to the violent person if my little sister or my mother happen to be there though, they’re way more violent than me. Me worse I’m know for is breaking the nose and jaw of a would be aggressor.

          • joa says:

            Well you did not specify you are a woman, in which the real question is if you were with a man, would you go and confront some attacker or would you expect him to do it?

          • Emeraude says:

            The person with the inclination and skill will deal with the problem first. The sex of the person is secondary.

          • WrenBoy says:

            I would more than probably take charge. But then I’m a woman with a short fuse.

            Too perfect.

          • jrodman says:

            Emeraude how dare you not declare that you are not a woman and therefore deviating from the default! You should be obligated to declare this to normalized internet discussion!

            @joa: What about a household with two men and two women where the men and women have sex with the women and the women have sex with the men, but there is no exclusivity about and they have children. Is that a heterosexual household or not?

          • joa says:

            Well it just happens that the person with the inclination to deal with a violent encounter more often than not is of a certain sex…

            jrodman: that sounds like child abuse to me. If there were no children involved I’d say the household would soon fall apart to jealousy.

          • jrodman says:

            I note that you did not answer the question.

          • joa says:

            What’s the point in stupid hypotheticals? What does it matter what I call that kind of household?

            The point is, I was using “heterosexual household” as a shorthand for man and woman living together. That’s what most heterosexual men and women end up doing. The existence of these fringe lifestyles doesn’t somehow invalidate the norm. The existence of some women with a violent streak doesn’t invalidate the norm that men are generally more violent and aggressive than women.

          • Emeraude says:

            The issue here joa, was that you seemed to conflating a behavior (“man will go defend the house”) with a sexual preference. By which I would have to understand that my family isn’t really heterosexual, because it does not manifest the described behavior.

            Which is bullshit.

          • jrodman says:

            The point is that you’re unable to deal with anything outside your pre-conceived box. I gave you a (silly!) scenario and you couldn’t deal with it. You also can’t deal with women being protectors, apparently, although it’s common. My mom was of my dad, and did all the heavy labor in the house too.

      • thecommoncold says:

        Maybe she would be the defender. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I’m just arguing that Rohrer should be allowed to include and exclude viewpoints, based on the scope of the game and the message he wishes to convey.

  8. DestroyYourEgo says:

    Rohrer is a cutie!

  9. Thoric says:

    Err, just to clarify – the wife and kids in Castle Doctrine are not simply trophies.

    When a robber enters their line of sight they run toward the nearest exit (a smart move, I’m sure you’ll agree) and if you put a shotgun somewhere along the way the wife will pick it up and blow the intruder’s brains out if he gets close. The male protagonist can’t even be present when his house is being robbed. He just sets crazy elaborate traps. So I don’t see where people would get this “cliche grizzled white male protector power fantasy” impression, except from their social justice blogs.

    At least play the actual game before you start talking shit.

  10. Unclepauly says:

    Haha the irony of all this “evil white man” horsehockery is that the people who would most get the “feels” from this game are basically poor people of any color. I myself grew up in a poor mixed neighborhood and trust me blacks, mexicans, asians, and whites who all lived in my neighborhood have the same feelings as this guy. I feel a situation should be gauged and lethal force should definitely be a possibility. If lethal force can be avoided than thank chuluthu but I couldn’t live with myself if I had to sit there and watch my children/wife get who knows what done to them right in front of me.

  11. Emeraude says:

    Edit: misfire. I suck.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>