Deep Silver Promote Dead Island With Appalling Statue

Oh come on. After the reaction to the tawdry idiocy we saw throughout 2012, you’d imagine publishers would stop and think for half a second before launching into another vile misogynistic campaign. But oh no, Deep Silver aren’t swayed. Today they have announced the abysmal “Zombie Bait Edition” of Dead Island: Riptide for Europe (the US has a whole other version), a boxed version of the game that comes with a statuette. A statuette of a woman’s bikinied torso, with her head, arms and legs crudely severed. It’s below, but be warned, it’s really disgusting. It’s hard to find the words.

Okay, no it’s not. This is beyond disgusting. It’s as if someone were attempting to demonstrate the most misogynist idea that could possibly be conceived, in an attempt to satirise the ghastly trend. A text book example of the most extreme ends of misogynist fantasy, a woman reduced to nothing but her tits, her wounds hideously depicted in gore, jutting bones, and of course barely a mark covering her globular breasts.

Incredibly, this is promoted as being,

“Dead Island’s grotesque take on an iconic Roman marble torso sculpture.”

and that it would,

“make a striking conversation piece on any discerning zombie gamer’s mantel.”

While there are a very small group who like to endorse their own unpleasant prejudices by angrily denouncing RPS for its coverage of gaming’s representation of women, I feel certain that even they might find cause to baulk at this. This is inexcusable.

Deep Silver – this can’t happen. You cannot be this vile, this outrageously stupid. For God’s sake, don’t do this.


  1. Delicious Narwhal says:


  2. TheApologist says:

    Genuinely surprised that someone has managed to find a new low in ultra-violence and misogyny.

    This isn’t funny, it’s fucking depressing.

    • SominiTheCommenter says:

      My reaction when watching Clockwork Orange.
      Oh wait, that’s art, this is misogyny.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        Clockwork Orange was considered highly misogynistic when it came out. It wasn’t always a classic movie, you know.

        Art is subjective. Some tools might even look at the Riptide bust and see art.

        • gwathdring says:

          The word “tools” seems out of place given the nuance of the rest of your statement.

      • Anabasis says:

        One could argue that the ultraviolence in A Clockwork Orange is designed to provoke contemplation on the nature of violence and adolescence whereas this “bust” is designed to provoke game sales of a mediocre game franchise and nothing else.

        • SkittleDiddler says:

          You’re spot on, but that does not immediately distance the bust from an artistic interpretation.

  3. Goodtwist says:

    I don’t know… You’re all getting a hard-on against a stupid publisher, Deep Silver in this case, because they’re offering a stupid peace of trash together with a computer game.

    At the same “your”, British, troops invade countries around the globe and kill innocent people IN REAL LIFE. Now, it would serve the credibility of your uproar if you first demonstrated your lack of consent with this particular set of situation before spinning this peace of indignation.

    • Ansob says:

      Because the existence of war and Tories somehow makes misogyny disappear?

      Plus, you know, New Labour/the Tories’ foreign policy isn’t exactly related to video gaming.

      • Mithrot says:

        How about you explain how this bust is an example of hatred against women and then you can feel free to be taken seriously?

      • Goodtwist says:

        Here I go again: how can anybody take this article – outrage over a plastic statuette to be issued together with a computer game – serious, all the while “your”, British, troops, ordered by the Government of the UK, kill people IN REAL LIFE?! It’s just beyond me… On the other hand, people seem to have gotten used to the “War Against Terror” and they just ignore it.

        • realmenhuntinpacks says:

          Because this is a games blog with a healthy streak of social responsibility. Have you ever heard of ‘the news’? It might be what you’re after. And also, unless your Costa Rican, might want to check what ‘your’ troops are up to. Probably not needlepoint.

        • wu wei says:

          So any forum about one subject must instantly be about ALL OTHER SUBJECTS or we’re being intellectually dishonest? If only RPS discussed issues like, say, militarized violence in video-games and the attitudes that promotes in society…

          The majority of us aren’t so single-minded that we can’t object to more than one disagreeable situation at once. Unlike yourself, it seems.

    • gwathdring says:

      I don’t think hard-on means what you think it means. Or maybe it does, but you misunderstand the mechanisms of the human sexual response.

    • fish99 says:

      What you’re actually saying there is you can’t legitimately complain about one thing until you’ve complained about everything else, even if it’s completely unrelated, which is one of the most bizarre things I think I’ve ever read. Seriously, just stop and read back what you posted and try to see the logical link you made to complaining about a tacky plastic statue in a collectors edition video game, and people dying in a war. There is no link.

      I should like you to consider that a significant majority of the British public were and still are opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sorry to shatter your naive illusions here but democracy doesn’t work the way you think it works.

      But really, if you want to hate everyone in Britain based on something our government did against the wishes of the public, go ahead, it’s a free world.

  4. Jorum says:

    argh I can’t handle the stream of people who claim that they can’t see what the problem here is.
    its madness.

  5. Renevent says:

    The entire premise of the game is hacking up half naked beach bod male and female zombies, yet somehow a statuette that perfectly encapsulates this is misogynistic and crass? Puh-lease! Can the fake outrage get anymore ridiculous?

    • Ansob says:

      You seem to have failed to consider the alternative, which is that if the entire premise of the game is hacking up nearly-naked zombie women, maybe the game itself is both misogynistic and crass.

      • Renevent says:

        You hack up half naked males as well, it is equal in it’s treatment of males and females. The game takes place on a BEACH RESORT…and women wear bikinis.

        Again, the fake outrage here is utterly ridiculous.

      • f69 says:

        Of course half naked men don’t even feature in your response. I’d give the PC brigade more consideration if not for the constant hypocrisy.

        • Bhazor says:

          If they were dressed like this with lingering ass shots then you’d have a point.
          link to

          But they don’t so you don’t.

          • darkChozo says:

            But the women don’t get that kind of treatment in-game, as is kinda the point of the OP. In that context, your response seems rather asinine.

            Not to mention that f69 rather has a point, in that Ansob’s response is completely ignoring the point of the OP’s post with a rather strawman-y reply. I’m guessing it wasn’t intentional, but if it were, it would be rather offensive.

  6. Lord Custard Smingleigh says:

    What are they saying we gamers are, by including this as an “incentive”?

    • NailBombed says:

      Necrophiliacs, maybe? Not sure what was going through those guy’s minds when they put this out, tbh. Actually, I reckon their minds were all in the gutter that day.

  7. Reinou says:

    Hmm…I like it. You guys are weird, you need to read more guro. :)

  8. zidders says:

    I have a question:How is this any different from the tens of thousands of gory statues you can find on sale every halloween? The fact that it used to be female? The fact that it has tits? What if it were a male torso? I mean, is it really sexist? It isn’t really human anymore..unless you’re attracted to it. I mean, if the argument here is that it’s demeaning towards women because the female form is being objectified…it’s a limbless, bloody torso. Unless you’re worried about misogynistic necrophiles, there’s no objectification here.
    Seriously. It’s NOT REAL. Why all of a sudden are people getting all pissy about desensitization? Gory horror movies went through all this in the 80’s and everyone decided ‘Well, it’s not real, it’s a movie, it doesn’t affect people as much as people feared, we can all breath a sigh of relief’ yet because it’s videogames, everyone acts like this issue is new?
    Much ado about nothing.

  9. Jenks says:

    Are all the bikini wearing zombies in the game with their limbs and heads misogynistic? I can never nail down where exactly the line is among the faux outrage crowd.

    • Jenks says:

      I think John is doing a parody of himself here, and it flew over my head.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Is the game also packed full of men in their trunks? Yes – there’s your answer then

      • Jenks says:

        Yes it is full of men in their trunks. So yes it is misogynistic? Or no it isn’t? It isn’t misogynistic, but putting the torso of one of the characters clothed the way they are clothed in the game (where it isn’t misogynistic) is misogynistic? These are serious questions I need answered so I can become more progressive.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          Fucking hell, I only unblocked you like yesterday, and you’ve already made me regret that.

          Here we go. Baby steps for the retard.

          The game has lots of women in bikini’s, is that misogynistic?

          No, because the game also has men in their trunks in it. Both sexes are treated equally.

          The statue exists to market the game to teenage boys. It is crude and crass but becomes a symptom of a deeply sexist and slightly misogynistic culture because no such game exists which markets a sexy man who has been ripped apart. Should the industry have a decent amount of games marketed to men and women, young and old, mature and immature, insert your race or nationality here, it can consider itself progressive. As it is, not so much.

          • gwathdring says:

            Sheng-ji? That’s not acceptable. Throw out the insults, or get out of the comments section. If there was a report button, I’d use it.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            You’re not a moderator. If RPS were suitably impressed by you, you would be but they are not so you are not. Please stop trying to be a moderator. If RPS wish to delete my comment, they would. You trying to tell me what I can and cannot write is you playing out your own self important little power fantasy.

          • gwathdring says:

            I don’t have a power fantasy about making people on the Internet say what I want them to. I do, however, feel that people being rude and insulting to each other is unpleasant and I prefer it not to happen in communities I’m a part of.

            While the forums are not the same as the comments threads, the first three rules of the forums all involve not using insults and being decent to each other. Those are generally things people expect of each other elsewhere, too.

            If it’s mean-spirited and it’s rude, it really doesn’t belong here. If you think me expressing that is a power fantasy, that’s your affair. I apologize if I went about it in a rude way. I usually just say “Please don’t use insults” or something. I should have done that here.

            But if you believe you have more of a right to be rude to your fellow commenters than I do to call you out on it, I think you’ve grossly misunderstood how this sort of a community works.

          • fish99 says:

            Your argument fails for this simple reason : those groups do not buy games.

  10. Toberoth says:

    I ordered two!

  11. Werd says:

    You know, when I first saw it I thought it was pretty dumb. But the more comments I read decrying how terrible it is the more I kind of warmed to it. I think I’d like to have one now. Clearly this is all the work of a clever reverse psychology PR scheme that Deep Silver has paid John Walker to kick off.

  12. affront says:

    Can someone explain to me how misogyny towards fictional characters is worse than violence against fictional characters?
    In discussions about the latter I usually read a whole bunch of arguments heavily touching on differentiation between fiction and reality, yet I never do here. It seems implied that misogynist games do strongly influence one’s behavior towards real women (if people were of the opinion that they don’t no one would care), yet apparently nearly everyone argues against the same happening with violence.

    This seems like a very weird double standard to me.

    • sinelnic says:

      Yes, this, absolutely this. My words but even better because English is not my primary language.

    • jkz says:

      A Good point that I feel I must counter with BAN THIS FILTH!

    • Wisq says:

      I suspect it comes down to a few things (all my opinion, feel free to debate):

      1. Violence in video games is roughly on par with violence in other media; however, sexism, female objectification, and/or mysogyny in games tends to occur more frequently than in other media. (Few strong female characters versus movies/books/TV, lots more “sex sells” marketing, etc.)

      2. Gaming as a whole tends to be something of a “boys club”, in that the nature of the medium and the community itself tends to push away women who want to contribute to the medium — a self-perpetuating cycle.

      3. Women can enjoy a violent game too, but it’s harder to enjoy a game that marginalises every women character (must be a damsel and/or a love interest, typically fairly one-dimensional) and makes a woman player feel unwelcome.

      4. Violence is obvious, and people generally understand that violence is bad, and that violence in fiction is something they shouldn’t do in real life, and likely could not get away with doing in real life. Sexism and mysogyny are much more subtle, and it’s much easier for our fiction to perpetuate (in the typical case) and even encourage (in certain ill-thought-out cases) that sort of behaviour IRL. We don’t have laws against casual sexism/mysogyny (short of violence), many people don’t tend to recognise it in themselves or in others, etc. In other words, it’s easier to separate game violence from real-world violence than it is to separate game sexism from real-world sexism.

      5. Violence is something of an expected and generally required part of the medium, because video games require conflict, and most conflict tends to be violent in nature. Sexism is generally not required or desirable, and including it tends to be due to failing to recognise it, or looking to boost sales.

      6. Both violence and sexuality (typically involving objectification of women) are commonly “played up” in promotional material to boost sales, but there are a lot more gamers offended by sexism and mysogyny than those offended by violence.

      7. Taking violence to the excess (recent example: Hotline Miami) tends to be funny and cathartic. Taking sexism/mysogyny to the excess (so that anyone can recognise it) tends to just be creepy and distasteful. This more than anything ought to indicate that violence is a core part of the medium while sexism is an unfortunate by-product.

      I could probably go on. Obviously #4 is the one that directly addresses your point, but the rest are mainly just to illustrate why I think sexism and mysogyny against fictional video game characters is innately worse than violence against them.

      Note that I’m specifically not addressing the cases where violence turns into something more objectionable. For example, some of those Modern Shooters which basically come down to “if they’re not white, shoot them”, which pushes strongly into racism rather than just violence. Similarly, a game in which you shoot or beat up every woman you see would fall firmly under the mysogyny column rather than (just) the violence column.

      • affront says:

        Well, that is a lot of text.. let’s see:

        1. I’ll interpret “more frequent misogyny” as “accounting for a higher percentage of the total products in the medium of games”, as there certainly isn’t a dearth of trashy movies/books – there are indeed more alternatives, though, as there simply is much more of it in total. You’re probably right, then.

        2. Not sure what/if this has to do with this, but it’s true – although in my opinion significantly less so in genres that largely attract a playerbase of higher average age.

        3. I didn’t really think about this at first, probably because I usually don’t care what the characters are – human, biological, AI, it’s all fine as long as the gameplay/mechanics are, too. I don’t expect to hate a hypothetical game where I play as a robot that mass-murders nothing but humans (or a woman on a men-killing spree). Your assumption may well be true for some, though.

        5. I disagree. Yes, many game concepts and mechanics require conflict and thus usually violence, but they can just as well be (highly) abstract – I can’t think of many games whose mechanics absolutely require a realistic or even exaggerated depiction of violence. In the vast majority of games the level of detail used for depicting violence is gratuitous as they do absolutely nothing with the possibility of said violence causing moral impact. Thus I’d argue that violence, too, is most often included to boost sales.

        6. True, that’s kind of repeating my original post, though. I was rather asking (or implying to, anyway) if they SHOULD be offended, and to what degree, if one were to approach both of these issues on even ground.

        7. Here I also disagree – Hotline Miami is one of those abstract instances. It would be much less “funny” if said violence was shown via CryEngine or Frostbite or what have you and end up like a more realistic Postal, for which distasteful certainly applies.

        Having thought about it further (and finally touching on 4.) I came to the conclusion that misogyny most likely does constitute a more insidious idea/thought pattern as, like you mentioned, the step from subconscious to acting upon it is less obvious. I’m still far from convinced that people who believe in equality from the get go have anything to fear (as in an unintended, creeping change of personal values) from fictional misogyny – but monitoring one’s thoughts a little won’t hurt.

        That all said I do believe that an approach somewhat equivalent to that used with violence should be called for, as I’m pretty convinced that it would be more beneficial to all parties – I’d expect its “opponents” to react less harshly/troll-y and maybe really think about it instead.
        I’d vastly prefer encouraging players’ self-awareness and honest self-observation of one’s pertinent actions, as one can not be absolutely sure if there are consequences to prolonged exposure to fictional misogyny, instead of the PITCHFORKS!!!!!!11 approach.

        Of course one should simultaneously vote with one’s wallet if some especially egregious variant comes along, but a little moderation and a more analytical approach would be swell.

        I concede that it is probably at least more insidious if not downright worse, yet the same methodology and standards should still apply when scrutinizing both issues as it’s far from conclusively proven that either case really influences one’s values.

        • sinelnic says:

          Again, this. I name this man my official speaker for the matter in question.

        • gwathdring says:

          I would argue that issues of social perception and relation require require a different approach than violence does because of the nature of those issues. It is possible to create sexist media with intent and purpose and without being sexist oneself. Plenty of works contain sexism and racism to serve an artistic or social purpose. But at the end of it, violence is behavior and action whereas sexism can manifest in thought and perspective–things much more easily affected by media consumption.

          This doesn’t just make sexism in media more insidious and stealthy. It makes it harder for a content creator to control even when they are fully aware of it. It’s easier to generalize it as a reinforcement of existing attitudes and behaviors. It’s easier to misunderstand it. It’s easier for something that seems progressive to one person to seem problematic or negatively reinforcing for another.

          Violence is much more rigidly contextualized in gaming, becasue it is so often mechanical. It is easy to distance myself from the social ramifications of stabbing everyone and everything in Crysis becasue I click the button. I understand exactly what causes that violence to happen. I control it. More so, I know it as a means to an end I’m given a path and I follow it. As a content creator I have more control over how the player experiences that violent content then I do over how they experience the state of dress of female characters in the game.

          In-game sexism is not just more insidious, it is more real than in-game violence and it is less easily controlled.

  13. aergistal says:

    psycho killer, qu’est-ce que c’est?

    • Saarlaender39 says:

      Man, I love that song…
      Now this Comment section has it all: dismembered torsos and talking heads.


  14. duncanthrax says:

    We’ve had dismembered torsos in games since the nineties. Includes such highly appraised games as the Fallout series.

    Why the outrage now? Because it’s an ad? Because it’s female? Come on.

    Women’s inclusion goes all ways. Good thing!

    • phelix says:

      Yeah, kinda because this is an ad. Deep Silver’s using a half-naked torso statuette with magically untouched cleavage to promote a video game. You’re not saying that’s morally perfectly fine, are you?

      • duncanthrax says:

        It’s a beachfront setting, so bikinis are expected. And cleavage is pretty much the point of bikinis.

  15. Mathute87 says:

    Oh, God… Again with the sexism.

    Would it be any different if it was the torso of a male? Yes? Then you all so-called “defenders of equality” are really just a bunch of hypocrites, huh?

    It’s bad taste. It’s an awful statue just by concept. Gore lovers will love it, maybe, but this doesn’t really help the general idea people has about video games. I wouldn’t buy it. I don’t give a crap it’s a girl’s torso.

    I wouldn’t buy any torso at all.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      But that’s the point – if you were on the design team and said “Hey guys, I know we all signed off on the female torso bust, but how about making a male one too” I suspect you would have been laughed out of the room and called gay a lot.

      If you were a woman and made that suggestion, you would have been laughed at quite a lot and then had it explained to you in the most patronising of ways that their target demographic is teenage boys and male torsos would not sell.

      • NathanH says:

        I wonder whether, if the idea that a male version would not sell is solid, this is so wrong. I’d be hesistant to call someone who would prefer this version to a male version a bad person. I’d also be hesistant to say that catering to your audience is a bad thing to do if your audience are not bad people.

        I wonder about the solidity of the assumption though. Certainly, I would rather have a male version that this item because I would be less embarrassed about having other people see it.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          Exactly! I can’t pretend I know the scenario I painted above is accurate in this example, but it is a common example in the advertising industry. If this statue existed in a culture that was truly without sexism, it wouldn’t be that much of a problem, because there would be plenty of marketing gimmicks involving objectified men. It’s not the statue in itself, its that this kind of crap comes up again and again and is all one way. We can’t point our fingers at the individuals who created this, but they need to be pointed at the industry as a whole.

          • gwathdring says:

            Agreed. I had a very similar series of statements during a sexism discussion over in the Cyberpunk 2077 discussion on the forums. The hypothetical “Is this any worse than a male version?” only works when it isn’t hypothetical anymore. A non-sexist world has room for media that objectifies women and it has room for media that objectifies women more than men. Things don’t have to be perfectly 1:1 just as a coin must come up tails seven times in a row fairly often in a truly random series of tosses.

            But there needs to be a general trend towards randomness and equality. And that trend exists … but it’s not robust enough for us to stop question this kind of thing.

  16. RedViv says:

    Wow. A bust (*badumtsh*) that encapsulates both of the big aspects that still shine a bad light on our hobby, brutal violence and sexual objectification, the latter to a rather uncomfortably literal degree. And it’s an “incentive”. Oh dear.

  17. lebbers says:

    Maybe some people “angrily denounce RPS’ coverage” of these subjects because these articles are always filled with such insufferable hyperbole and sententious hand-wringing.

    If game journalists want to be treated like real journalists, perhaps they should exercise some journalistic restraint.

    • Werd says:

      Well said!

    • jkz says:

      What, like real journalists? You must read one of them clever peoples papers.

    • elmo.dudd says:

      Honestly I would say that games journalism is on par with non-games journalism. Though this has more to do with the declining quality of non-games journalism, though this article makes for a further plummet to catch up with.

  18. RogB says:

    ‘I’m outraged.’
    ‘no, -IM- more outraged than you’

  19. FreshwaterAU says:

    disgusting, awful.

  20. Tei says:

    We have all these zombie pop culture, because zombies are “safe”. You can’t have russians invading germany, or chinese invading nepalm… because much less people will buy your game, and some people will be angry at you. So having zombies is like the political correct thing. Nobody is going to turn around and defend zombies.. until now :D

    As for myself. If theres ever a zombie apocalylse, I will never use a dead girl as zombie bait. I till try other options, like some random unknowm dude leg. Never this.

    Legs Ok.
    Torso no-Ok.

  21. Beernut says:

    Try as I might, I wasn’t able to find anything regarding this edition on the dead-island or deep silver websites, nor on their twitter or facebook. Have they already removed everything after the media outrage?

  22. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    Oh my. This is really terrible. I wasn’t particularly interested in that game, but now I would not even buy it in a Steam sale.

  23. Danda says:

    This is beyond stupid. This is 150% stupid.

    I can’t believe anyone here is defending this crap. “Oh, you self-righteous John Walker, you.” Well, you are WRONG.

    • Mithrot says:

      “I can’t believe anyone here is defending this crap.”

      I don’t think anyone is, even though I personally don’t have a problem with it. I think it has more to do with people labeling it under misogyny, ironically insulting victims who had to suffer from the hands of people who DO have hatred against women.

  24. MOKKA says:

    Please someone explain to me who the target demographic for this stuff is. On the other hand, don’t. I’d rather not want to know that there are people out there who genuinely want crap like this.

  25. Fawp says:

    Hey, let’s all start tearing large clumps of hair out of our head due to a poorly rendered human torso.

    • phelix says:

      It’s more about the incentive and symbolism behind it than about the object itself.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        Where was the outrage in regards to the “incentive and symbolism” in all the headless bikini bodies littering the landscape in Dead Island?

        It seems to me that the only people sexualizing this thing are the people opposed to it.

  26. derella says:

    Fuuuuck me. No wait. Fuck them.

  27. Lambchops says:

    I think people here are completely missing the REAL ISSUE of OVERLY PRICED collector edition stuff!

    (in case you didn’t notice I’m not being serious here)

  28. jkz says:

    Yes Yes, but how much is it???

  29. Baresark says:

    LoL, I thought this was sarcastically written, but then I read the comments to discover it was not. It’s pretty much exactly like a roman marble torso statue but with color. I just don’t think the internet is capable of handling anything with any degree of rationality at all anymore. I think I would have rather seen a male version alongside the female one myself. It probably would have avoided this whole “controversy”. I have to say though, as someone who went to school for fine arts, I’m glad the internet wasn’t around for the vast majority of human history.

    • Baresark says:

      Also, I have to add, do people not know what misogyny is? This is not inherently misogynistic because it doesn’t inherently demonstrate “hatred of women by men”. People are just stupid sometimes.

      • oceanclub says:

        The only women I have seen comment on this are appalled about it.

        I now confidentally expect to be told that men know what misogyny is better than women, and any man who agrees with those women are “white knights” (that’s how the argument tends to go).


        • Baresark says:

          Haha, I would never argue that a man knows what misogyny is better than women, but to assume that women inherently understand the concept better is simply untrue. I would say the understanding is probably about equal on both sides. I also want to point out that it’s OK to be appalled by this, but that doesn’t make the piece misogynistic. It doesn’t matter if women hate it (I hate that statement as the women who have commented on it do not represent their entire portion of the human race). There are probably not many men who like it either. I love art, but I’m not interested in owning this. I’m simply pointing out that it’s not misogynistic simply because it’s a female torso. But people seem to think that it being a female zombie torso that peoples opinions of it range from dislike to abject hatred makes it misogynistic. And it’s funny how everyone ignores the context completely. The first game was full of both women and men with attractive bodies that were missing limbs, partially decayed and/or in a state of being completely or partially disemboweled (among other things). In the context of the game this is attached to, this is by no means in any way misogynistic.

          • oceanclub says:

            “The first game was full of both women and men with attractive bodies that were missing limbs, partially decayed and/or in a state of being completely or partially disemboweled (among other things). In the context of the game….”

            So why do you think they chose only a _woman’s_ bloody limbless body is used as a art piece? Pure coincidence?

            Also, why does the fact the game features these things mean that they’re appropriate to display? If the original Call of Duty game had come with a statue displaying a limbless bloody WW2 American soldier, would people be defending that because it was a tribute to a roman torso statue?


          • Sheng-ji says:

            The piece in itself is not misogynistic (it’s an inanimate object), it’s very existence is evidence of a deeply ingrained sexist, verging on misogynistic culture.

          • Kamos says:

            “So why do you think they chose only a _woman’s_ bloody limbless body is used as a art piece? Pure coincidence?”

            That “torso statue” there is awful, in my opinion. It is a prop that borrows its style from trash & gore B-movies (2010’s “Piranha 3D” comes to mind!). It is porn (and gore. Ew.). But you’re overthinking this if you think it is misogynist.

            Why a female bust? Because it was made by male IT geeks for male geeks. They thought big, bloody globular breasts were great. There were probably no females around to say: “hey, how about no? / how about a male torso?”. The truth is, there aren’t enough women working in the games industry, and as a result there isn’t enough content (such as this) for women.

            And if you say, “why should there be content specifically crafted for men/women”, then… I don’t know. Some of it is genderless, like the adventure games of yore, but this is PORN. This is a prop for young boys with bad taste. Not an attack on women.

            Edit: somehow I managed to quote to the wrong person before. Sorry.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            @Kamos – I think we are saying the exact same thing here!!! As a woman who used to work in the industry though, I maintain my “verging on misogynistic” comment though, based on my 15 years of experience which ended 10 years ago, admittedly, though I still have friends on the inside.

          • Baresark says:

            No one seems to be able to accept the fact that if you don’t like it, no one is making you buy it. I’ll remove one step here. On average, both men and women see women’s bodies as more attractive. That is a statistical comment, meaning that if it doesn’t apply to you, that is fine. Compound that by the fact that this game, overall, will appeal to men more than women and you get a greater emotional impact brought on by the depiction of the statue (that is a woman’s body). The more attractive something looks, the more appalling it looks when someone looks at this. I mean, I am not interested at all in having this and I’m not inclined to sit here and defend this as art, but it hits home a lot more than many “artistic” pieces do. You are supposed to experience an emotion when looking at art and this is pulling out all kinds of emotions from people.

            @Sheng-Ji: You are calling this misogynistic based on your time in the industry? I’m sorry your time in the industry was so terrible. But because you had a bad time in the industry does not inherently make this misogynistic. It is, as you said, an inanimate object. While that may be your opinion, people should not confuse this with things that are actually misogynistic. There are misogynistic things out there, such as any male ire you may have had to deal with, but this is just a stupid ugly statue.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            The worst thing about my time in the industry was the fact they were building the spinnaker tower outside my window. Doesn’t mean I didn’t have to sit in meetings rolling my eyes as we discussed female breast size or how visible the nipples should be whilst simultaneously telling the art department that the men “may appeal to much to gay people, make them less gay”.

            The industry needs to end this bullshit, it is wrong and as anti progressive as it gets.

            And yes, this stature is still a glaring symptom of everything that is wrong with the industry – not the cause – s symptom. While we need to focus on treating the cause, not just patching up the symptoms, doesn’t mean we should ignore the symptoms,

          • Kamos says:

            @Sheng-ji: Wow. That sucks. You know, I feel RPS should interview you about the stuff you’ve seen while working in the industry. Now *that* would be an interesting read.

    • oceanclub says:

      “roman marble torso statue but with color.”

      I’ve seen something like this repeated several times now:

      1. Ancient world “torso” statues originally had the limbs. The Venus de Milo, for example, still has holes where rods supporting the arms were positioned. Also, she still has her head.
      2. Ancient world statues were originally painted (see for example: link to

      3. (An opinion): I’m not sure how presenting a faceless delimbed bloody torso of a woman in sexual manner as a collectible is any better if the status is based on the Venus de Milo. (And I hope someone doesn’t abuse the word “parody” here, unless they can state precisely _what_ the statue is parodying.)


      • jkz says:

        Yes and the zombie bait also originally had limbs.

      • Baresark says:

        The reason I used the statement “but painted” was not because they were not painted in Roman times. It was because the modern tradition of torso sculpture usually foregoes fanciful paint jobs. They usually have only single color on them and that is just to cover the medium itself. I love all this, “I’m gonna show the fine arts guy what for” stuff.

        Also, the fact that you think it’s sexualized says far more about you than it does the sculpture. The act of having breasts does not make a woman sexualized.

        • oceanclub says:

          “Also, the fact that you think it’s sexualized says far more about you than it does the sculpture”

          You are honestly arguing that the body portrayed isn’t rendered in a stereotypically sexual way, with large breasts, deep cleavage and a flat stomach?


          • Baresark says:

            Maybe it’s because I have been around and know people who have bodies like that, but the act of her having a flat stomach and breasts with cleavage does not inherently make it sexualized. You need to get out more. When it’s hot I walk around without a shirt on, but I’m not sexualizing myself. When my girlfriend and I go to the beach, she walks around in a bikini and has that body (with head and arms attached, clearly) but she is not over sexualizing herself. She isn’t objectifying herself by dressing like that on a hot day. I will go so far as to say that there is nothing sexual about that particular statue at all, because having breasts isn’t in and of itself a sexual matter, and the fact that the arms and head are missing destroys any potential for sexual fantasy (for me, can’t speak for the sickos).

    • colw00t says:

      How can you possibly have gone to school for art and still think of this as a knockoff of a “Roman Torso Sculpture?” Hint: “Roman Torso Sculpture” is not a thing that actually exists.

      • Baresark says:

        Ha, Torso statues certainly are a thing that exist Just because you don’t know about doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

    • Baresark says:

      LoL, yes, in ancient Rome they were just full statues. But there are sculptures in more modern times are based off of those pieces with the limbs and heads missing, and that is where the “Roman Torso Statue” concept came from. They are inspired by the statues with the missing limbs. Also, I want to point out that the legs are not missing in the same respect the head and one arm we see is missing. The statue is stopped there, most likely for size constraints.

      • plugmonkey says:

        I think you’re underestimating how big a difference there is between making a model of a torso without the head and arms for reasons of framing, and making a model of a torso that has had the head and arms hacked off.

        To prove this theory, imagine there is someone you quite fancy.

        Imagine that, to get their attention, you have painted a portrait of their beautiful face and sent it to them.

        Now, imagine that you had instead sent them a picture of their severed head.

        As I am sure you would ultimately have to agree with the arresting officer, that’s not the same thing.

        • Baresark says:

          You are simply completely ignoring the context. This isn’t some kids art project. This is a statue sold in relation to a zombie game that takes place on a resort island with lots of zombies dressed in bathing suits and existing in a mutilated state.

          In a typical “art for art’s sake” statue, you would not see any of this stuff. But the context isn’t artistic, it’s context is that of a zombie game.

          • Beva says:

            Surely, a nice severed erect cock would do that job just as well then?

          • plugmonkey says:

            I am not ignoring the context.

            Within the context you provided (it being the same as a Roman bust), it is far more sinister because it is not a study of the female form, it is a study of a woman who died a very violent death. You are ignoring this context.

            If you want to look at it within the context of a zombie survival scenario, that’s fine too. It’s equally revolting. I would imagine you would approach a fellow survivor very differently depending on whether he killed zombies, or killed zombies and kept their bikini’d torsos as a trophy. You are also ignoring this context.

            It is exactly the context that makes it creepy.

  30. JohnS says:

    I’m gonna try and be clever and say that there’s clearly something wrong with one group of people here in this comment section, but I’m not gonna say which one.

  31. Alevice says:

    People who complain about the outrage and shit answr me some questions:

    Why does this thing has clean breasts?
    Why does the backgroundpackage has no blood spla on the foreground covering even a bi of the breast?
    WHy does this thing has comically oversized that defy gravity (boobs dont work that way and all that), resembling more of a errm tifuck pose (woman grabbing her breasts togheter so a mal can put his enis between them) rather than how breasts look in an eeryday bikini? Hell, even women with large breasts dont look like that in a bikini.
    Why is this called a bust when it isnt?
    Why isnt there a male version in a tong shoing up an intact bulging penis?

    • Mithrot says:

      “People who complain about the outrage and shit answr me some questions:”


      “Why does this thing has clean breasts?”

      Ignoring all the blood, gashes, bruises and that stain near the belly-button? No idea, but it happens in art all the time where characters are stupidly clean but still have blood all over them (DA2 prime example), probably because it would’ve taken more effort. Why are you focusing on the breasts though, would it be better if it was more realistic for a bust made for a Zombie RPG hybrid?

      “Why does the backgroundpackage has no blood spla on the foreground covering even a bi of the breast?”

      Why would they cover they breasts? Would it be better if it was? Its obviously like that for shock value and to entice people, probably creeps. Breasts do a goodjob of getting people’s attention, regardless of sex.

      “Why does this thing has comically oversized that defy gravity (boobs dont work that way and all that), resembling more of a errm tifuck pose (woman grabbing her breasts togheter so a mal can put his enis between them) rather than how breasts look in an eeryday bikini?”

      They are marketing to males? Probably because they want to idealize the generic, super attractive female model who swims in the tropics? Would it be more acceptable if her breasts are smaller? Its pretty obvious its done as hyperbole.

      “Hell, even women with large breasts dont look like that in a bikini.”

      That would explain why its fake.

      “Why is this called a bust when it isnt?”

      Bust, torso, human body part, whatever. Its probably easier to label it as such.

      “Why isnt there a male version in a tong shoing up an intact bulging penis?”

      Your questions were fine until this made things feel silly, please tell me if you see a vag above.

      Otherwise, why does there need to be a male version?

      • Sheng-ji says:

        “They are marketing to males?”

        Bingo! Can we have an industry where women who like this kind of immature crass crap can buy it in a version they like? thanks, k bye now.

        • sophof says:

          Apparently you haven’t noticed, so I’ll point it out. The overwhelmingly majority of things outside of gaming is marketed at women and a lot of it is banal. Female sexuality only doesn’t work the same way as men’s, so it doesn’t take the same form with just the genders switched.
          Why exactly do you think women’s magazines are full of sex and beautiful women?

          Advertisers are not stupid, that’s why you don’t see a sexualized men’s bust, disregarding the fact the the entire game itself will appeal much more to young males.

          People are sure quick to jump on the hatred band-wagon. It makes you wonder what the difference really is with the ‘sensible’ posters here and the rest of the world, as I see so often claimed.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            I’m sorry, I’m going to need a source which backs up your accusation that the overwhelming majority of marketing is aimed at women. Mens magazines are full of fit men selling stuff to men. Womens magazines are full of beautiful women selling stuff to women. Mens magazines are full of women in skimpy clothing selling stuff to men. Womens magazines.. Oh.

            “disregarding the fact the the entire game itself will appeal much more to young males.”

            And that statement is why you are sexist, and the problem. This is you presenting your sexist opinion as fact.

          • sophof says:

            That is an an interesting way to live I must say, you want me to find references yet insult me in the very same post. You are not really interested in a discussion right there, stop kidding yourself.

            Also, pointing out that the game is marketed to males does not make me sexist, that is just an outright silly claim. Is pointing out that playboy is marketed at men sexist? Cosmopolitan at women?

            Reading your post makes it clear you are not really debating this topic at all, you are just trying to find reasons for the emotion that you feel.

        • fish99 says:

          Women were never going to buy this game though so your logic fails. And I don’t mean they weren’t going to buy it because it’s sexist, there’s no objectification of females in Left 4 Dead and yet probably 98% of it’s sales were to males. Honestly you’re just seeing something that isn’t there. It’s a woman’s torso because it’s being marketed to men, and especially young men, because it’s men who buy these kind of video games. It really is that simple. Are you suggesting the game shouldn’t be marketed towards it’s intended audience?

          Like John, you’re just desperately looking for something to offend you.

  32. zachforrest says:

    Surely this is just a bit of a lame joke about romantic sculpture? That also provides a bit of titillation for idiots (young men).

    Get a grip, i reckon.

    • rossasaur says:

      As a certified young man (16) I can assert that this does not arouse me in the slightest, lest I be lobbed in with whatever depraved individuals enjoy this.

      • zachforrest says:

        well kudos. While the gore aspect wouldn’t have appealed, the mere mention of the word ’round’ or ‘bra’ would have been sufficient to send me into fits of hormonal catatonia.

  33. tobecooper says:

    Louis CK once simplified (<-important word here) this sort of comment-section-gender-wars pretty aptly.

    One side believes that their interpretation is correct and righteous, and everyone else is wrong.
    The other side believes the topic to be of no concern, and we should discuss something more important like me (I ate a cheese sandwich, it was quite OK, thanks for asking).

  34. Ghoulie says:

    Good lord.

    I can’t think of a single reason someone would want to own that unless they were a serial killer.

  35. Drake Sigar says:

    I don’t see anything wrong with this.

    Just kidding. Inb4theapologists.

  36. jackass00 says:

    I like it.

  37. f69 says:

    People dislike this kind of opinions because they find entire ‘deal’ often hypocritical. Everyone knows that you’d probably praise a game where a female protagonist beats up almost exclusively male bad guys, but you would shit bricks and throw them at people if a male protagonist fights female bad guys.

    Hence the constant questions of “if this were a man” and the typical “oh it’s not the same because… *bullshit*”.

    • jkz says:

      Nope, I would be against it unless it also contained girl on girl action.

    • Premium User Badge

      gritz says:

      That’s because one side of the argument is refusing to use any kind of context or understanding about the world outside of their narrow experiences.

      The whole “misandry is just as bad and if you disagree you’re a hypocrite”/”you wouldn’t complain if it was a man!” argument misses the point that misogyny is a thing that actually exists in the real world.

  38. FunkyDarkKnight says:

    I really cannot understand everyone being so disgusted over this. It’s a bit vile, yes, but it’s hardly something to be shouting from the rooftops about because of some blood and boobs in a bikini. It looks more like an old, campy horror collectible than an example of the evils of the world.

    • jackass00 says:

      It’s because people like to feel good about themselves. So when they are saying for example: “I can’t believe anybody could like that disgusting misogynistic crap”, they are actually saying: “Hey, look at me how I don’t objectify women, I’m so modern and sensitive because I am angry at a plastic figure.”

  39. Chelicerate says:

    Oh, for fucks sake. From their community manager: link to

  40. Gothnak says:

    The other element of the stupidity of the game industry is that it’s ok to have a headless corpse with no arms or a head, but god forbid that a bikini strap was cut and there’d be a bare breast.

    I remember working on a game in the past and having to remove elements of sex from it even though beheading was just fine.

    Would there be more outrage if the ‘bust’ pardon the pun was the top half of a naked woman? Would that be more or less misogynistic? I bet parents would likely be more upset at the bare chest than this bloody one.

    • NathanH says:

      I have a vague feeling that I might actually find it less tacky without the bikini.

  41. RogB says:

    and as the internet frothes with rage, the PR folks laugh their asses off for a job well and truly done. Money cant buy this level of publicity.

    • Sarkhan Lol says:

      “HEH look at these nerds get mad, if this isn’t the road to financial success and critical acclaim I don’t know what is.”

    • Sheng-ji says:

      The idea that bad publicity sells merchandise is a myth

      • Valvarexart says:

        No it isn’t. Loads of huge companies do it, and not without reason.

        • Sheng-ji says:

          Why don’t you give Gary Glitter a ring and ask him how his last album sold?

          What is Charlie Sheen getting paid now compared to his pay before his meltdown?

          How is BP doing in the states right now?

          • KevinLew says:

            Charlie Sheen was essentially fired because he had massive drug/alcohol problems. He even admitted that he wasn’t sure if he could stay clean. This would be a dead-end to most people’s careers. Instead, he faked insanity and it went viral. His popularity eventually resulted in him making a U.S. tour where he continued the dumb act for more money and also sold merchandise promoting his idiotic catchphrases. In the end, he got another leading role on television.

            So let me get to the point. Sheen would have been fired from CBS no matter what. But he used negative publicity to keep himself in the public eye and keep his career alive. It doesn’t matter that he gets paid less. What matters is that many other actors in his situation would have basically had no career at all anymore, but he’s doing relatively great.

            Plenty of people have used negative publicity to their advantage. Don’t tell me that it doesn’t work because Andy Kaufman’s career was based on it.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Charlie Sheen had a massive drug and alcohol problem for over 4 years before he was fired. Coincidently, this was weeks after he publicly made derogatory comments about the series’ creator, Chuck Lorre.

            Bad publicity caused the dismissal in the first place.

  42. norfolk says:

    $10 there’s a PR statement that patronizes the whistle blowers and rationalizes the statue as a work of satire.

  43. rossasaur says:

    At first I thought this was going to be some overly senstive rant. But this, wow… Disgusting.

  44. Nachimir says:

    I think what the publisher meant was “conversation in which the owner is struck”.

  45. LockjawNightvision says:

    Yeah, yeah, it’s gross and mysoganist (though I doubt that was intentional) and blah blah blah, but really? Italics in the headline? Shrill cries for them to stop the madness because how dare they take a risk on something that isn’t absolutely politically correct? It’s stupid, but it’s hardly the end of civilization as we know it. Calm down. RPS is turning into Jezebel.

    • norfolk says:

      I dunno. People are waking up to the industry’s latent misogeny. I think that’s a good thing. Not the end of the world, but I think it’s good that critics are upset. They should be (and we should be, as well). Political correctness can be very annoying, but you know what’s way worse? Letting publishers get away with the kind of crap they currently do, then lambasting the indignant for being too self righteous. Something has to give.

      • distrocto says:

        I don’t know. One would think people (or gamers) would have more legitimate issues to bring up with publishers, from (Always Online) DRM, abusing DLC practices, making the same kind of “safe” mass market games, delivering broken (buggy) games and generally breaking promises, issues of ownership and generally overbearing ToS contracts, the general quality of their games and their writing and so on.
        Instead the most important issue is apparently a bust in an optional Collector’s Edition of a game nobody has to buy.

        • norfolk says:

          But people do complain about those things. We’re not highlighting the gender issues here at the expense of other shitty industry practices.

      • Valvarexart says:

        Yeah man we have to STOP them. People who have no problem with their games should STOP BUYING THEM, and it’s totally not like you can do that right now if you feel offended.

    • Bhazor says:

      And ignoring it would be better? Mysogyony doesn’t go away if you ignore it. It’s like a rash, you don’t notice it at first, then you ignore it, then you willfully ignore it as it becomes too big to forget about then when you finally try to do something you find out it’s inoperable.

      But if your purely complaining about the use of italics in headlines then yeah I’d agree. That shit is not cool. No one should put italics in headlines. What next? Three exclamation points at the end of a sentence?

    • darkChozo says:

      I actually had trouble parsing the headline because I thought it was a title. I spent like thirty seconds to figure out what exactly an Appalling statue was.

    • LockjawNightvision says:

      It isn’t the coverage I object to, it’s the tone. I think John is a very good writer, and I really admire a lot of his work. But whenever women’s issues come up, he just can’t wait to treat them like the perpetrators are child molesters. And I’m not saying that as a rhetorical exaggeration. What else, outside of violent crimes, would the word “appalling” (in italics!) actually be appropriate to describe?

      This is a marketing boondogle, not a war crime. It’s stupid. The creators of Stupid Things deserve to be mocked, not lectured by an overbearing schoolmarm. And this isn’t just an ideological stance, it’s a pragmatic one. Shrill, angry lectures beget shrill, angry responses. People with moderate opinions may now argue for more extreme ones, because John has loudly declared that anyone who disagrees with him is an Immoral, Dangerous Asshole. And when you open with artillery, your opponents are likewise forced to roll out the big guns.

      You know what would be more effective? Shame. No one believes in Zeus anymore because it’s silly to believe in Zeus. The average gamer is in their thirties now, and this is the adolescent bullshit that’s supposed to sell us games? That’s laughable. So let’s laugh at them instead. Let’s laugh so loudly that anyone who did something similar would look like an idiot. Because a lot of people don’t mind looking like assholes, as long as they’re right. As long as they can move units. As long as they can feel like they got the last word. But no one wants to look like a fool.

  46. oceanclub says:

    At least one good thing will come from this: I hope someone does a tumblr called “Nice Guys Who Defend Deep Silver And Buy A Copy of Zombie Bait Edition And Still Wonder Why They Not Meeting Girls”.


    • Mithrot says:

      Why would making a tumblr targeting people you clearly don’t agree with be a good thing? Even as a joke it doesn’t make sense.

  47. Sulaco says:

    ‘Why are people upset about this?’

    It’s a special edition of a game where the collectable figure is a bloodied, limbless human torso. Even if it was a male torso, it’d still be needlessly sick. I don’t play games that have violent gameplay elements – however gruesome – BECAUSE I want to hack people into pieces and squeal in pleasure at the gory, limbless stumps left in my wake, but because I enjoy experiencing a situation I’ll likely never be in (war, zombie apocalypse, traffic warden simulator). Even if I did take particular pleasure in mutilating zombies and corpses in video games, I would have to question my own taste in violence if I was excited about having that abomination on my mantlepiece.

  48. Cunzy1 1 says:

    I guess the Union flag bikini is to qualify for tax breaks?

  49. Voidy says:

    So, ugh, surely you have considered the possibility that this might be a (not-so-clever) satire on the state of gaming? I mean, there is such a thing as being intentionally disgusting, campy, and schlocky. “So here is a gory, disfigured female torso.. buuut with big shiny boobs on it! Do you find it arousing? DO YOU?”

    make a striking conversation piece on any discerning zombie gamer’s mantel.

    I don’t know about you, but to me these words, especially combined with a friggin’ Union Jack bikini seem to be dripping with venom. If this is indeed intended as a message, it surely is more clear and provoking than the mixed signals sent by Far Cry 3.

    • HadToLogin says:

      Well, checking how many comments are here, they totally nailed making it a “conversation piece”.

  50. realmenhuntinpacks says:

    I don’t understand why the apologists bother reading this site, posting their nasty shite. This probably isn’t the blog for you. It’s like Daily Mail readers spamming Guardian comment threads. This website has a well publicised stance on issues of equality and especially gender politics… I think the vast majority of the readership appreciates that – it’s one of the main reasons I’ve been reading it since its inception. It’s written by journalists, some of whom I’ve been reading since I was a kid – it feels like home, and the only really big-ticket games site that gets it right, all the time. That’s how I feel. I don’t feel compelled to get into tangles on websites that don’t speak to me. I suppose that it seems to me that if you keep getting riled and het up by the opinions you see being espoused here… well, you know. Accept that it’s not a forum receptive to your opinions maybe? Go elsewhere?

    • Wisq says:

      I for one appreciate them all showing their faces here, in the most extreme fashion possible, so I can quickly and easily identify whose comments I should be blocking.

      It’s a lot easier to spot the people whose opinions don’t matter to me when they’re loudly frothing at the mouth in articles like these, versus when they’re just being generally ignorant and mildly annoying in a bunch of other articles.

      • Grargh says:

        Because it has been scientifically proven countless times that people with stupid views on one particular topic can never contribute anything of value to any other conversation whatsoever.

        By the way, nobody shares your exact same set of opinions. If RPS starts to cover more than one sociopolitical controversy, you’ll eventually end up blocking everyone who posts more than mild puns.

        • Wisq says:

          You say that, but the reality is, when I come across people I’ve blocked and I don’t remember why, I often temporarily unblock them to see if I was in err. Almost universally, they’re either continuing to be offensive, or they’re just not contributing anything to the conversation. So I have a good laugh and then I block them again.

          As far as I can tell, I’ve had very few false positives.

          Generally, if someone is willing to post blatant flamebait or spout off their ignorance in a particularly volatile and polarising comments thread, they’re not the calibre of commenter I particularly want to hear from on a daily basis. However, it’s a lot easier to notice a few particularly nasty comments than to notice a general trend of lacking conversational value.

          • wu wei says:

            Wisq: I find exactly the same thing.

            I honestly think that anyone who doesn’t find this a blight on video games (and shit, humanity in general) really doesn’t have anything valid to contribute to any other discussion either. Not one I care to listen to, anyway; it’s as much my right to ignore them as it is theirs to open their mouths and fart.

    • distrocto says:

      “Why does anyone have a different opinion than me, and how dare they question the party line!?”

      • SominiTheCommenter says:

        Not one step backwards, said Walker to its brethen…

    • zachforrest says:

      I’m cripplingly liberal, but don’t want to live in some insane liberal think thank.

      This constant lambasting of mail readers (normally versus guardian readers). sheesh. they’re both hypocritical shite.

      • Premium User Badge

        gritz says:

        I don’t think RPS is in any danger of becoming an echo-chamber, even if it runs off its most vocal critics, since the main thesis of those critics appears to be “RPS should be less critical”.

        • realmenhuntinpacks says:

          Zach – no, me neither. I should have clarified – I don’t want people to vanish because they don’t agree with me, more that they might have a nicer time carrying on this sort of discourse where they won’t be harangued by the majority. There’s nothing wrong with getting stroppy over what you believe in, you can’t force or expect people to agree with you and you can say what you damn well like. But every forum has its context. If you walk into a United pub and start braying about Wednesday, you’ll probably get twatted pon the conk, and no-one would be surprised.

    • Mithrot says:

      @realmenhuntinpacks, I completely understand.

      The difference between us is that I don’t agree with you, you see me as a sexist, misogynistic privileged apologist and I might see you as a anti-sexuality, no-fun-allowed pseudo-femenist (joking, ofc). We both see this as home, however I also see it as a forum to discuss gaming and the issue of sex in gaming has been boiling over the years.

      In any manner of human discussion, people seek to prove a point. I don’t agree with the perception of “misogyny” in this particular instance and feel the term is being thrown around for every slightly piggish male thing that pops up. I feel alienated when John Walker, a person I respect, bolsters this tone. That is why I feel the need to try and change that, maybe it makes me a dick, but just because this specific forum is not “receptive to my opinion” doesn’t mean I should be leaving. Instead I want to promote healthy debate instead of it being dominated by a single consensus.

      You probably won’t stay here long enough to read this, but we’re both gamers and we love to play games, that is why we have a vested interest in the integrity of this industry and in RPS. That doesn’t mean we have to like each other, but I think it is better for this site if we talk about the issues and learn off another rather than take this “us vs them” stance or blocking each other.

      Just my 2 cents.

      • realmenhuntinpacks says:

        Hey Mithrot, actually I don’t think this is an issue of misogyny. In response (and yeah I know you’re not being totally serious) I’m a pretty standard, female-form obsessed masculine male man, up for fun and long, 2CB fuelled walks on the beach at sunset. This is the fucked thing about arguing on the internet – if we were round a pub table it’d probably be apparent that you’d struggle to slide a credit card between our real differences. I’m pretty sure everyone voicing on here knows this isn’t a monumentally important issue, but it’s there, and the kinds of pathetic crepuscules that actually find the time to comment on it (that’s me and you) are drawn to leave an opinion because we’re bolshy. I don’t think you’re a troglodyte. I think characterising this argument as about misogyny is inflating the issue – it’s subtler. I don’t think the people behind this hate women, more that this is a shade of the larger problem that exists throughout society. Bottom line – I’m having a little rant because I care about the issue, as do you, and we both presumably feel it’s worth being opinionated. In the real world, we might have a little two-minute debate, differ, then slip into our smoking jackets, fire up the smack pipes and talk about all the other things we do agree on.

    • Xari says:

      I enjoy RPS and its stance on the majority of issues in the games industry, just not all of them or partially with some.

      For example, I really wish we had less stupidly oversized breasts and unbelievably exposing gear on women in video games, but I do definitely not see the example given here as an active attack on women as some fanatics here make it out to be.

      It’s not a hard concept.