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. Hug_dealer says:

    I am pretty sure I have purchased fake torsos for halloween, and that zombie movie props are quite popular for purchasing, which often involve body parts.

    There really is not an issue here. If you find issue because its a woman, guess what, they only had 2 choices in that department. Is it the Bikini? Oh gee i forgot it was on an Island, and its called riptide.

    Honestly, there is no difference in this than it is going to see a saw movie, or a shock horror film. NONE. So please grow up and do exactly what a mature adult should do, not purchase something they find immature or gross, but not attempt to force other people into the same view.

    Do i personally want a torso statue? No, but its available for those that want it. Its not like you are forced to get a torso, and they put someone in your room to make sure you put it right next to your monitor.

    This falls in the same lines as violence in our entertainment, pointless. Guess what violence has been entertainment since we first started recording our history, just look at a couple of epic poems from various countries, to the gladiators, etc.

    Everyone do yourselves a favor, get on ebay and type in zombie props. Guess how many torsos you will find.

    • Sulaco says:

      Do you really think that violence in the media and violence in the form of a mutilated human torso that you can proudly display to your friends and family aren’t any different? Violence is in the entertainment media more often than not because it’s part of life, and television/film/games allow us to experience simulations of real-life and even fictional scenarios, where violence happens to be one of the more exciting elements in a story (it doesn’t have to involve gore – even a bloodless fist-fight is considered violent). But when we as consumers are being encouraged to buy what is effectively a trophy/symbol of some of the worst things people have to offer, and glorifying the sight of a mutilated body for entertainment, there is definitely something wrong here.

      What’s next? Real discarded human limbs in a bin bag? Hey, it’s only a bit of violence!

      • Hug_dealer says:

        overreact much? I cant take anything you say serious at this point, because you went straight to real human parts in a bag.

        • Sulaco says:

          And I can’t take you seriously when a response to your comment has to be considered an overreaction. What a creative way to dismiss what I said.

  2. KevinLew says:

    Something this tacky almost makes me think that it was almost intentional. I almost wonder if Deep Silver wanted to get people angry and upset on purpose to exploit negative publicity as free advertising. You’ll know that I’m on to something if somebody files a formal complaint, and Deep Silver raises the stakes by saying it’s freedom of expression and somebody’s trying to censor art.

  3. Snargelfargen says:

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

    Ahahaha! I can just imagine the conversations now. My friends would think I was a weirdo.

    “Dude, what the hell is that?”

    “That’s some…. interesting sculpture you have there…”


    • Hug_dealer says:

      your friends are probably not zombie fans, nor gamers. Which would explain why they find it weird. Just like someone who doesnt play table top rpgs would find stacks of books, and white boards with maps drawn on them with all kinds of gibberish they dont understand weird.

      • Premium User Badge

        gritz says:

        Yes, a dismembered bloody tit statue is just as oddball as a whiteboard and a stack of books.

        • Hug_dealer says:

          yes, it can be.

          As i have said previously, there is nothing different with this, than someone buying a movie prop from a zombie movie, or a shock horror film, and displaying it.

          People enjoy different things, and zombies were popular long before they got into video games, and they all feature shock horror to varying degrees. Which fits with this torso.

          • Snargelfargen says:

            I’m gonna give this one shot, since you seem determined to defend the torso.

            I love zombies! I dressed up as one for 9 years straight for Halloween and I’ve even participated in the Vancouver zombie walk. These were great opportunities to have fun with friends and strangers.

            I love zombie/horror/shock flicks too! For example: 28 Days Later (reducing people to their animal instincts in a terrible situation, and the good or bad that can come of it), to Hobo With A Shotgun (a fantastic satire of exploitation flicks and the hypocrisy of the filmmaker and viewer who are complicit in the horrible acts therein) and The Descent (a woman coming to terms with the loss of her husband and child as well as the betrayal of her friend) Violent movies can tell us something interesting about what it is to be human. Horror is a great tool that can get the viewer to emotionally invest themselves in the story.

            So what does a dismembered female torso tell me? That I like women helpless, abused and headless, depersonalized, unable to look me in the eyes and affirm that they too are human.

            I’d rather have a poster of Rutger Hauer looking me in the eye and chewing glass on my wall.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            thats a pretty deep look at the torso. Good for you.

            Now, tell me what a dismembered male torso says to you? It damn well be just as insightful, or you are just plain full of it.

            I see the torso, for what it is a torso. If you choose look deeper, go ahead, your view is simply 1 of many, but the fact is that you are one of the ones that will try to force your views on others. I am not.

          • Snargelfargen says:

            “Now, tell me what a dismembered male torso says to you? It damn well be just as insightful, or you are just plain full of it.”

            That’s actually an interesting point. One of the more common horror tropes is attractive young women being horribly tortured and/or murdered. It’s often portrayed as a punishment for being sexually promiscuous. Of course sometimes the result is a bit more PG13, like in Drag Me To Hell, where the actress just gets gross bodily fluids squirted onto her face (Seriously, it happens like 5 times, it would make for a good drinking game). Anyways, this obviously has some very negative overtones (rape being the most obvious), as well as the idea that women are only useful for sex, and should be discarded or even punished afterwards. Messed up stuff, stemming from misogyny that has been commonplace in western culture for a very long time.

            That trope is so common these days that a lot of films intentionally subvert it in various ways to mess with the audience. The actors act as if they know they are in a horror movie, or they do something stupid and shockingly aren’t killed. So yeah, in the right context, a dismembered male torso would be interesting.

            To answer your original question, a male version of the torso wouldn’t mean much to me at all, though it would be kinda tacky. That’s the root of the problem! The female torso carries all of that unpleasant baggage, while the male torso doesn’t.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            thats a nice 1 sided look at things.

            Lets not forget that many of those movies also feature strong female leads that often save the day or survive. Also make note that in many cases the men that also die for some clearly trope reasons.

            You are simply misguided.

          • Snargelfargen says:

            “thats a nice 1 sided look at things.

            Lets not forget that many of those movies also feature strong female leads that often save the day or survive. Also make note that in many cases the men that also die for some clearly trope reasons.”

            This doesn’t contradict anything I said. Are you implying that misogynistic tropes do not exist, because not all movies include them? Are you saying that my point of view is subjective and therefore somehow less valid? Really not sure where you’re going with this.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            lots of tropes exist, and more are created every day.

            The fact is your reading into this certain piece is entirely based on your opinion on it, rather than any sort of fact or evidence.

            None of that is relevant though. The idea that this shouldnt exist is not for any of us to decide, but the people who created it, the only relevant thing is whether people choose to purchase it. That is for each person to decide. What there is no room for is for people to try and make the decision for others.

          • Snargelfargen says:

            Ok, I think I get it. Misogynistic tropes are not problematic, because tropes that aren’t misogynistic also exist. My point of view is not valid, because it is based on opinions.

            That doesn’t make any sense. You’re trying on arguments like sunglasses at a convenience store, hoping that one of them works. The next bit is interesting though:

            “None of that is relevant though. The idea that this shouldnt exist is not for any of us to decide, but the people who created it, the only relevant thing is whether people choose to purchase it. That is for each person to decide. What there is no room for is for people to try and make the decision for others.”

            Not once have I said that the torso shouldn’t exist. I have implied that I would judge people who did purchase the statue. If holding opinions about other people’s actions is a crime, I’m guilty as charged! It’s also something we all do every day. Ironically, you’re playing the role of thought police here. Also, I am not a telepath and therefore am unable to make decisions for other people.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.

            It is not Misogynistic by any means.

            You are projecting your own value and opinions said media. What you see on that torso is not what most other people see. The fact that it does not sexualize the woman in any way tends to show they were not really aiming at that. The Bikini is worn properly, not torn, or sliding off or anything of a sexual nature. It is a common piece of clothing worn by people at the beach. Perhaps if the bikini was torn in some way, or exposed the torso. You would have something to cling on.

            No, you cling on the fact that there are boobs there. You say no heads/arms etc. But your real point is boobs. That is all.

      • Snargelfargen says:

        They are gamers for the most part, some casual, some very serious (right down to the whiteboards and stacks of books). Then again, almost everybody in my peer group are gamers these days. The term “gamer” is starting lose its meaning depending on how you define it.

        Of course I think large swathes of so-called “gamer” culture are incredibly tacky and shouldn’t be taken seriously. This is likely reflected in my choice of friends ;-)

        • Hug_dealer says:

          none of the gamer culture should be taken seriously. Its a hobby for all of us. Whether it is this statue, a big daddy, or some stupid gun on a stick from cod, or a pokemon. They are all equally absurd to someone who doesnt like said object.

          Zombies are very popular, well before it got into gaming, and people have long collected the graphic parts, and done graphic artwork involving zombies, and corpses, etc.

          There is nothing new here.

          • Snargelfargen says:


            what does a dismembered female torso tell me? That I like women helpless, abused and headless, depersonalized, unable to look me in the eyes and affirm that they too are human.

            Whatever good is to be found in a hobby, this isn’t it. Liking a genre doesn’t require unquestioning acceptance of everything in it.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            you dont have to like it. You dont even have to buy it. not everyone shares the same views on this torso as you.

            Why dont you stop trying to force your views of the torso on us. I dont want the torso, but Im not attempting to take if from them.

          • NathanH says:

            Snargelfargen, I think you are taking what liking this torso means a little bit too far. I sincerely doubt that there are very many people who view the piece in the way you suggest. I would say that more plausible things it says are “I like fictional gore, and I like tits, and I don’t really have a problem with combining them”, or “I like tacky slasher horror memorabilia”.

            I think very very few people will see the whole ensemble as a sexual ideal. And if there are people who do, I doubt these people are particularly dangerous to society or gaming or whatever.

            I don’t think the main criticism of this should be about suggestions that it promotes a particularly odd view of women, but rather that in video gaming, or at least some branches of video gaming, the default position is to take whatever idea you have and then add tacky sex appeal. I’m not sure how much I agree with that criticism, but it seems at least a plausible one to make.

          • Snargelfargen says:

            That’s fair. I didn’t intend to insinuate that people who purchase the statue are crazy sadomasochists. That would be a crazy overgeneralization, but rereading, I can see that isn’t clear.

            I guess what I’ve been trying to say is that subtext and context matters. There’s a consistent pattern in portrayals of women in western media and it isn’t a pretty one. Yes, It’s just a statue, but so is any game or film. It’s impossible to truly judge any of them on their own merits as if they magically willed themselves into existence.

            Taking subtext of the statue to its most ludicrous limit demonstrates it’s presence. Depersonalization, vulnerability, abuse, these are all themes that are harmful because they keep turning up so often and we let them pass unexamined. The statue itself is just a piece of plastic, but it carries some cultural baggage.

  4. Hahaha says:

    To many comments can’t be arsed to read them but a few points

    1) would it be ok if it was a man’s torso?
    2) would it be ok if it looked more zombieish and less like a body a cartel has dumped?
    3) I wonder what john thinks of HR giger
    4) stay away from either IDW or image zombie comics (brain is failing me) actually don’t, go and read as many as you can find and maybe you will see the target audience for this thing

    • Wisq says:

      1) yes, though I would still question its value as “zombie bait” (where’s the brainnnnns?)
      2) maybe, but only if “more zombieish” meant mutilating it enough to desexualise it
      3) dunno
      4) will do

      • Hahaha says:

        Not sure what my post looked like when you responded but the audience this would seem to be aimed at enjoy that sort of shit, nearly every comic cover (watch it be completely different publishers) has a woman in a bikini or some sort of skimpy outfit. fuck zombie god damn porn exists.

        2) make it more moldy looking and maybe remove a bit of breast? something along the lines of link to

        lmao ok when searching for that pic I found
        link to

        Which along with the fecking zombie PORN shows that this is targeted towards a specific audience that DOES exist.

        add BOOM! studios to the list of publishers

        • Premium User Badge

          gritz says:

          Thank you for pointing out that comic book culture has just as many misogyny problems as video game culture.

          • Guvornator says:

            Could there be a connection?

          • Hahaha says:

            Do you think sex sell………..yes or no?

            Sex is used to sell products to both females and males…..FACT

            First person shooters are predominately aimed at and played by males………FACT

            Artists are going to love you censoring them ;)

            could you also link me to your posts on shop mannequins?

          • Sheng-ji says:

            “First person shooters are predominately aimed at …. males”


            Why can’t they market them at women too? I like fps’s I really do and I’m not alone. Why aren’t I being sold fps games that appeal directly to me?

          • Brun says:

            Because a shooter marketed at women probably wouldn’t sell very well. It’s just the nature of video game demographics and sub-demographics. Women are already a minority amongst gamers and are even more of a minority amongst shooter fans. At the end of the day, these companies exist to make money from video games, and they’re going to pursue that in such a way as to maximize their chances of success.

            For whatever reason, women just don’t seem to be engaged as strongly by video games (and especially shooters) as men. We can speculate all day as to why that may be, but my guess is that it’s for the same reason that men typically aren’t engaged by things that women usually enjoy (I don’t want to give examples, lest I be accused of stereotyping. But I’m sure everyone – men and women alike – can think of their own). I don’t think it’s wrong or bad for men and women to like different things, in fact I think that’s perfectly natural. I think it’s rather unfair to criticize marketing and product development that plays on those differences, given how commonplace they are in other fields (cosmetics, clothing, food, film, books, etc.).

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Thats BS. Just as many girls play video games at my childs school as boys and genre does not differentiate them, individual games do.

            This gender divide nonsense is as a result of our generations sexism, which is what we want to stop. What you’ve just said is no different to the Plantagenets deciding that because only men could read, the only stories that should be written down are those that appeal to men. Skip a few generations to a time when both women and men read equally and there are books aimed at men and books aimed at women and books that appeal to both. Can we have that in games please.

          • Hahaha says:

            I was careful not to say games ;)

          • Brun says:

            You can apply what I said to any product that is heavily used by one gender and not the other. Purses, for example. You don’t see purses marketed at men, because men generally don’t like purses. Yet no one calls Coach or whoever sexist for only marketing to women.

            And I never said that the demographic landscape in video games wasn’t changing (it is, rapidly), nor that such change is bad (it’s great, actually!). Whether the perception of that demographic as predominantly male is still accurate can be debated, but obviously the marketing studies or whatever that these companies keep doing are keeping the majority demographic pegged at age 18-24 male.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            Nearly every man I know has a pouch with subdivisions for holding money, cards etc. They call them wallets I believe and there are a wide variety of them each appealing to different fashions.

            I’m talking about games because, well, this is all about sexism in gaming and so were you, unless first person shooters are not games in your mind.

            The changing demographic in gaming is strong evidence if not proof that games of all genres appeal to both sexes. So why are most games only being marketed at straight males?

            (And yes, the kids at the school play a multiplayer FPS game – it’s dressed up as a snowball fight, but mechanically, it is a straightforward fps)

          • Hug_dealer says:

            well, i showed this to my wife.

            She said it was gross, why……………….because it was a torso.

            I then had to ask her if it was because it was a woman in a bikini, and she said no. That she didnt even notice that. I then asked if it were sexual, or if she felt that it was offensive to women. She then said, which i pointed out in another post, that it was not sexual in any way. it is a bikini that is worn normally by women, and it was actually worn normally, nothing missing or torn etc.

            At the end, my wife said she didnt want it in the house, for no other reason than its gross. Just like she doesnt want a deer head on our wall. Its gross.

          • Kamos says:

            Sheng-ji: “Why can’t they market them at women too? I like fps’s I really do and I’m not alone. Why aren’t I being sold fps games that appeal directly to me?”

            I completely agree with you. Games that appeal to you should be made. However, do note that this is a problem that goes much further than “no games for women”. Until indie games and digital distribution came into play full strength, some 6 years ago, a lot of types of games ceased to be made because publishers decided they were niche. Only now did XCOM, a AAA (?) turn based game, get made.

            So, in a sense, “games for women” are simply too niche right now. As Auntie Pixelante aptly says: “we must make the games we wish to play in the world”. Of course, I don’t mean YOU have to make them. But… Well, I hope you see my point.

          • Sheng-ji says:

            I certainly do see your point and believe me, I argue the same argument just as passionately when the discussion comes to turn based strategy games or 4x games or (insert any other genre I love that isn’t mainstream here)

            It is arguable that say a turn based strategy game appeals to way more than 50% of the population too, which is the highest statistic a female friendly game can boast!

    • tobecooper says:

      At 3, I don’t understand why you need to drag cock monsters into this discussion. I postulate to leave them alone to their happy lives at LV-426.

      • Hahaha says:

        No reason was just wondering is all
        link to

        • tobecooper says:

          Comparing them to Giger who puts a lot of thought into his disturbed nightmares is, to me, strange.
          I see no thought in the thingy that Deep Silver produced. It’s not art – it’s a hollow reference + boobs&gore for sake of boobs&gore.

  5. Laurentius says:

    Recalling Mr Grayson article about players doing something, can RPS editors DO something more substantial this time as well, like maybe refusing to promote, advertise, review DeadIsland games ?

  6. Delusibeta says:

    And lo, we find rule 19 of the internet in action. “People complaining about sexism in video games? Let’s add a really sexist item to our special edition and watch the free advertising appear. Plus, it’ll make sure that they’ll remember the name of our game!” (or at least that’s how I’d imagine the argument from PR went. Certainly, I’d wager they were damn successful in generating column inches)

    Is it just me, or has developers and publishers gone out of their way to increase the amount of sexism in their games since certain websites started complaining about it? Certainly, I don’t recall anything of this scale in the original Dead Island.

    Also, in the interest of fairness, next time someone includes an item that promotes violence (e.g. a 20-inch replica gun, for example) into their special editions, could we piss on it with an equal amount of vigour as we’re pissing on this? Thanks.

  7. KaiserNail says:

    It’s a good exercise to juxtapose the gender and/or race of the people involved whenever there’s a controversial subject to see whether by doing so would change the nature of the controversy or even eliminate it.

    For example, if this was a male zombie torso, the piece would go from being “unbearably disgusting” to unremarkable at best. Thus we can conclude that the controversy is fake and is born from a set of double standards which, in this day and age, are simply not needed. Since we all want to live in an egalitarian society, we need to be fair and even-handed when we apply our standards.

    As an added challenge, try to imagine what kind of discussion would be sparked by the male zombie torso having dark skin and/or being fat.

    • wu wei says:

      You mean like how depicting a white man in chains and a black man in chains would be exactly the same thing?

      You’re absolutely right…if you completely ignore all history and context.

  8. Monkeh says:

    This is just sickening..

  9. Valvarexart says:

    How to be like Gawker media and Fox News summed up in one headline: X does X in SUBJECTIVE WORD

    It shouldn’t be your job to tell me if something is appalling or not. Tip from the coach: be descriptive instead of subjective.

    • Guvornator says:

      I have to say, although I’m on John’s side, the use of the word “vile” did make me wonder if they’d been bought by the Daily Mail. Bloody foreign limbless torsos, comin’ over here and taking food from the bubbling, bloody neckhole of honest British limbless torsos…

    • Dana says:

      Just so you know, RPS is not a news site, but a blog.

    • Premium User Badge

      gritz says:

      Yes, it is clearly not the job of a blogger to express their opinions too explicitly.

      • tungstenHead says:

        Nor is it the job of an arts and entertainment commentator to commentate on matters regarding arts and entertainment.

  10. Thrasymachus says:

    It’s like I’m really reading the Daily Mail!

  11. Doobs says:

    Well, looks like our torso did its job as zombie bait!

    On the left, a bunch of hyper womens libbers foaming at the mouth to label yetanotherthing as misogyny.

    On the right, a bunch of desensitized loons who will defend any topic no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid being judged.

    • Valvarexart says:

      Don’t worry, this is standard procedure here at Walker Daily.

    • gwathdring says:

      Are you sure there are only two sides? I mean, clearly you’re not on either one so that’s three. And I don’t like the patronizing tone you take, so that’s four.

      Well that broke down quickly. I didn’t even have to actually read people’s arguments and try to understand them with respect to the two sides you presented first.

  12. rsanchez1 says:

    OH FFS

    I should’ve listened.

    At least she has nice-looking tits.

    • Sheng-ji says:

      Really? You like those? You should go pick up women from unlicensed plastic surgery clinics!

  13. CletusVanDamme says:

    The fact that it’s female has somehow become the issue here?

    Guys, it’s statuette of a fucking mutilated corpse. The rest is secondary.

    • Premium User Badge

      zapatapon says:

      The subtle undertones of the word “bait” in the title “zombie bait” suggest that the fact that the torso is female is neither random nor secondary.

      • SkittleDiddler says:

        It’s doubtful that zombies have any kind of sexual attraction to the corpses they’re eating.

  14. Longrat says:

    I hate this stupid double standard that social justice retards take when it comes to using words like misogyny.
    Would you say it’s misandry if the statue was that of a buff man’s torso?
    No you wouldn’t.
    So why is this misogyny? It’s in poor taste, clearly, but misogyny? Really RPS? What’s become of you?

    • Premium User Badge

      gritz says:

      I wouldn’t say that because misandry isn’t a thing that exists outside of internet messageboards.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        Go back to ShitRedditSays, please. The grown-ups are talking.

    • Erinduck says:

      “Would you say it’s misandry if the statue was that of a buff man’s torso?”

      No, because men aren’t being oppressed and in cases like this they appropriate the language of the oppressed to either consciously or subconsciously continue their oppressive behaviour.

      • Longrat says:

        [mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-] Show IPA
        hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

        It is not:
        All that neo-feminist tripe you just shat out of your mouth. Just like drawing a dead woman isn’t misogyny, this isn’t misogyny.

  15. Brun says:

    In an overwhelmingly obvious marketing ploy, company releases shocking/controversial advertisement to generate discussion and pageviews.

    Internet, in its naivete, overreacts.

    Nothing new to see here, move along.

  16. InsanityBringer says:

    I don’t see how someone writing about something they dislike and asking (but not forcing, at least in a direct manner) for them to stop is forcing an opinion on something. Trying to get them to stop would be the same thing, right? Or am I being an idiot?

    Really though, I don’t like this. I didn’t exactly need help determining that. But that also isn’t a reason to ask Mr. Walker to stop, or a reason to dismiss this article, really.

    • Valvarexart says:

      Or he COULD just have written the article in an objective manner and let the readers decide if it was vile, appalling, misogynistic and if calling it extremely horrible is an understatement. But who am I kidding, he makes money doing this.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        Valv is right.

        I am completely sure that if it were a male torso, The story written would not be nearly the same.

        The idea that simply because it was a woman makes it special is actually appalling to me. you have 2 gender choices, male or female, if you pick female. You obviously hate women, if you pick male………………………. its fine.

        Now i would like to point out that both the top and the bottom of the bikini are completely intact. it is not sliding off in any way to draw attention to the breasts or the vagina. The parts that draw the attention are the missing parts. But somehow they all focus on the remaining parts, which would be ok, if there was an attempt to sexualize or draw attention to dah boobies, but there isnt.

  17. darkmouse20001 says:

    I reckon John Walker is a closet ‘misogynist’. Where I see a mutilated corpse, and certainly not something I would ever want to own, or even see the point of, John sees tits.

    I’ve said it before in these misplaced anti sexism rants, he’s the one with the problem. I’ve never really paid much attention to tits in games, and I enjoy saving damsels in distress, as I get very little chance to do it in real life.

    Also, FFS, that is not appalling. Unpleasant yes. This type of thing is appalling (I genuinely advise no one to scroll down to the pictures, thinking about them horrifies me weeks after reading the article) – link to (I did not pick the article to start a debate on race by the way, only as an example of genuinely horrifying things.)

    That is appalling. Events like those in the article take place all over the world every day. A fucking stupid statue is NOT appalling.

    • Snargelfargen says:

      Just like, think of the starving children in Africa maaan.

      *posts on gaming site*


      Edit:holy crap, the site you linked is horribly racist and anti-semitic

      • darkmouse20001 says:

        As a matter of fact it is. Not something I frequent, but the link was sent to me by a South African friend trying to raise awareness of the issues SA is facing. The site may well be racist, but that wasn’t the point.

        The point is that a tasteless statue is hardly appalling. I was trying to put some perspective on things.

  18. Kamos says:

    “Misogyny (pron.: /mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.”

    I had to check out what it meant, because people around here use it so freely that it takes on new meanings.

    I don’t think that “torso sculpture” is tasteful or particularly intelligent. However, I don’t think either that it is, as an “work of art” (cough, cough) trying to discriminate, denigrate or preach violence against women. As for sexual objectification? It is quite obviously stealth soft porn for young males. No worse than many movies and games out there. It is PORN (for the subset of people who like gore). John Walker makes a stand and says porn shouldn’t exist.

    • Telekinesis says:

      Thank you, the only thing that is sexist and out to lunch here is John Walker.

    • ribobura osserotto says:

      >”Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways”

      Note the usage of the word “can”. This essentially means not everything is freaking misogyny. In this case, it’s a freaking joke, and one crafted specifically to lure the attention of dim-witted reporters bent on a quest for a misconception of gender equality. All publicity is good publicity, be it good or bad. The ad admits it so itself when it says “IT MAY CAUSE OFFENCE”. You have to be twice as stupid to not be able to recognize irony as blatant as this.

  19. ribobura osserotto says:

    link to

    Congratulations John. You and the rest of the crew really deserve it.

  20. Stellar Duck says:

    Well, my blocking list needed to be calibrated anyways. That’s done now.

  21. Banzaibill says:

    I don’t think you know what misoginy means. Stop dragging this site in to Kotaku territory.

    • wu wei says:

      Maybe if you knew how to spell it, your argument might carry a little more weight.

      • Longrat says:

        Cause misspelling is a direct sign of stupidity right?
        I mean, look at all those morons who were dyslexic in history. People like Einstein, Edison and Patton. Totally idiotic right?

  22. Holdthepickle says:

    Welp time for me to check my privilege!

    • Anabasis says:

      Why are you talking about privilege? Nobody said anything about privilege.

  23. Jack32X says:

    That’s the last thing anyone needs right about now. More bloody tits

  24. Erinduck says:

    It sure is nice seeing a bunch of straight, white dudes tell me what is and isn’t sexist.

    • Valvarexart says:

      Yeah I agree only musicians should be allowed to comment on music and only women should be allowed to say what is sexist and not.

      Also check your privileges cis scum

      • Erinduck says:

        Guess what! A bunch of straight white dudes from a ridiculous position of privilege don’t have anything meaningful to say about sexism! What a surprise!

        • Valvarexart says:

          I would then argue that everyone reading this site is in a “ridiculous position of privilege” and thus the whole debacle is meaningless, and what with Walker’s opinions being moot because he is a privileged white male.

    • Jenks says:

      “It sure is nice seeing a bunch of straight, white dudes tell me what is and isn’t sexist.”

      It sure is nice seeing someone qualify opinions based on sex (and race), and then somehow pretend to be the one who isn’t sexist. Typical “progressive” racist, sexist nonsense.

      • Erinduck says:

        Gee, it’s almost like straight, white males are in the ultimate position of privilege or something.

        • Brun says:

          By ruling that they are forbidden to have and voice opinions based on their race and gender, you’re propagating the very oppression you claim to be crusading against.

        • Jenks says:

          “My brands of racism and sexism are ok.”

    • MrUnimport says:

      And it sure is nice being told I’m oppressing somebody else and then being told I am unqualified to speak in my own defence.

  25. sophof says:

    This is just silly. This is exactly as wrong as playboy selling magazines, which is not at all. Not a single person is being mistreated, people are getting what they want and the company is getting more money, everyone is happy.

    I honestly don’t understand where this problem with companies pampering to adolescent boys comes from, it is something that has existed always and for good reason. Tbh, I think this actually sends a (probably not intended, but still…) message to some young boys that their sexuality is ‘bad’.

    Sexism is a real problem, made up problems like this one don’t help.

    • ribobura osserotto says:

      Check your privilege, CIS scum, or we’ll be seeing each other when Castration Day finally goes ahead.

    • Holdthepickle says:

      It pretty retarded to be complain about this trivial crap when women in the middle east get acid thrown in their face for revealing their ankles.

      • Stellar Duck says:

        Yes, let’s not deal with one problem with game culture when there is another much worse problem somewhere else that’s entirely out of the scope of a video games blog.

        • sophof says:

          If you claim this is a problem, the only logical step is that you apparently think it is wrong to market things sexually? Also, why is the sexuality a problem, but the blatant gore porn not? What is exactly the difference? Should we abhor violent busts as well?

          I think you just haven’t thought this through very well. I think the appalled reactions come from essentially good intentions, but they are simply silly. It is perfectly fine to not like something and still be ok with it to exist, this is a thing you can do. It does not make you a mysoginist or a ‘bad’ guy, honest.

          • Stellar Duck says:

            Is selling thing sexually a problem? Yes, I think it may well be. I certainly have plenty of reservations. Sexuality is great and I love it, but crass marketing exploiting sex is not. This bust is not sexuality. It’s just shitty marketing. The claim that it’s a tribute to Roman sculpture is laughable and almost offends me more than the bust itself.

            I fucking hate gore porn with a fierce passion and wish it would just die in a fire. I think this bust is obnoxious for both those reasons. It offends me aesthetically, as a person who knows what Roman sculpture was, as a man and as a feminist. It’s the singularity of bad taste, lack of thought and it’s the perfect example of what is so obnoxious about the games industry.

            But that wasn’t what I commented on. I commented on the laughable notion that because a more severe problem exists in Saudi Arabia nobody should mention any other problems ever. Going on, I didn’t say it shouldn’t exist. I wish it didn’t, because I wish there were no morons who thought it up, but I’m certainly not calling to ban it. Again, I was commenting on the notion that you can’t address or discuss a problem if a larger one is extant.

          • sophof says:

            Ok, Fair point I guess, but you can also turn around. Why is it ok for John Walker to basically call everyone who doesn’t agree with him, vile, stupid and a misogynist. That’s a pretty big leap from something that is completely trivial don’t you think?

            I also have a very hard time believing you want to ban sexuality from advertising. That just sounds way too extreme. And you can simply not have it both ways.

            It is MUCH more messed up the way people are attacked for not immediately taking up the pitchforks imo. Tbh, I thought John Walker had simply written this drunk or something, but apparently this is normal for him.

          • Stellar Duck says:

            I can’t be certain what the motivations for John Walker writing as he does are, but were I to hazard a guess it would be that a lot of the people who do comment in disagreement are in fact vile, stupid and a misogynist. As he have stated in a comment elsewhere, he isn’t opposed to reasoned arguments against his views but many (I want to say most, but I can’t back that up) of the dissenting voices are in fact not well reasoned. He obviously does not think this is trivial and I tend to agree. This particular thing may on its own be worthy of a shrug of the shoulders but as he also says in the article it’s following a lot of similar crap from 2012.

            I didn’t say I wanted to ban sex from advertising. I said I have plenty of reservations about it and thought it was a bad thing. I can certainly think that it’s a bad thing while at the same time not calling to ban it. But I sure wouldn’t mind if it went away as it is obnoxious to me.

            As for your last bit, Walker is not attacking people for not picking up the pitch forks. He’s attacking, if that’s the word, the ever present bunch of people who will do anything to shut down this discussion. And they’re here. I can’t say what they’ve said to this post as most of them are blocked from my view because I got fed up with their bullshit over the past year, but they’re here.

          • sophof says:

            That is a very weak response. He is basically charging in head first guns blazing and then blaming imaginary other people that have yet to post for their imagined vileness in the future? I hope you agree that is simply wrong and even a little messed up.
            Also, if you read the comments it is also completely untrue.

    • distrocto says:

      But don’t you understand?!! Selling this plastic statue with breasts and exposing them to the male gender will break our space-time continuum and will make everyone go on an extended rape rampage, it is the direct reinforcement the patriarchy needs to succeed in its goal of world domination.

      You will doom us all, why won’t you understand?!!

  26. MellowKrogoth says:

    It’s as if this came out of a horror/torture porn movie. They often like to mix gore and sexuality. I don’t watch those but you gotta admit there’s a large public for those movies. It’s a bit strange to scream bloody murder now just because this crap made its way into a game ad, when it’s already commonplace.

    As to whether it’s mysoginystic… I guess yes, if you can call market forces mysoginystic? Same reason why you see mostly women’s bodies in ads all over the place, men look at them and women as well (to compare themselves). If displaying nude male bodies all over the place had any commercial sense I guess we’d see them a lot already. In this particular case their target audience is clearly the male zombie movie fan.

    Edit: overall I’d be interested to know more about what shocks you in this. Do you take issue with people indulging in their dirty fantasies? Or is it rather the issue that this is associated with a triple-A game? Either way you’d better go after Hentai games before they infect the mainstream, because if you found *this* shocking…

  27. PlusFour says:

    Well i think it’s great. Everyone should buy one, i think everyone should just get a firm grasp on the situation at hand here. Maybe with both hands. Yu liek it? Then go buy it. You don’t? Then p**s off telling people not to like it. Grrrrr! We should rise above this petty squabbling surrounding sexism in games and not loose our heads…. I just hope it doesn’t cost an arm and leg to buy.

  28. F33bs says:

    “tawdry idiocy”
    “vile misogynistic campaign”
    “the abysmal “Zombie Bait Edition”
    “be warned, it’s really disgusting”
    “beyond disgusting”
    “the most misogynist idea that could possibly be conceived”
    “the most extreme ends of misogynist fantasy”
    “their own unpleasant prejudices”
    “This is inexcusable”
    “You cannot be this vile, this outrageously stupid.”

    I find it really hypocritical that the main people calling for a “discussion” of misogyny and sexism in gaming are the same ones who immediately take to hyperbolic reactionary blog posts whenever something worth an actual intellectual discussion crops up.

    It’s even more funny because RPS’ coverage of violence in video games is intelligent, approached with sensitivity and respect for irony, whereas every single “discussion” on RPS about misogyny in video games reads like an opinion piece in a high school newspaper where we get to read FEELINGS about ISSUES.

    By all means, let us have a discussion on misogyny in video games. But first let’s calm the fuck down and show some class and journalistic integrity.

    • Bhazor says:

      What is there to discuss?

      It’s a vile misogynistic idiotic figurine.

      • Valvarexart says:

        2/10, that’s all I can do.

      • Kamos says:

        “It’s a vile misogynistic idiotic figurine.”

        No, it is PORN. Not simply a figurine, not a work of art, not anything like that. Stealth-PORN, maybe. Gore-porn? It has to do with what males want, what they wish for in their dreams. I don’t personally understand how gore and tits fit together, but this has nothing to do with what is politically correct and certainly not with what *you* think is correct. It is about male desire in general. Though some people like smaller breasts, I guess.

  29. ZephaniahGrey says:

    This is sickening, just sickening. This kind of thing needs to stop. How does a game THIS bad keep getting this much press? Or how do they even keep getting made? The game is garbage and people need to stop writing about it.

  30. icecoldbud says:

    Artistic freedom is all i can say, if you don’t like it don’t look. I find it pretty gruesome but come on, if enough of the people that don’t like it manage to have this picture pulled so to speak, i just think its a step in the wrong direction! Print all show all just leave the choice up to the viewer, he/she has the power not to look whereas the people who printed the above gruesome picture should always have the power to say show what thy want…..freedom just deal with it!

    • Erinduck says:

      @Totalbiscuit Are you sure you aren’t being an idiot by tweeting it? Think about it, they wouldn’t do it if it didn’t get a reaction.

      @chillin_chum Ignore it and it will go away is not valid outside of the playground

      • Verity says:

        I for one hardly find that offensive, I don’t care if that a gore porn, tentacle porn, or a chest of Hercules himself, so you don’t really have to ignore it. As he said, you have to respect the freedom for the advertisement to be like this as it is legal to do so.

        Oh, and TotalBiscuit is hardly a proof of objective thinking when it comes to something like this. He can point out what pros and cons a game have objectively, but he gets angry and biased rather quickly in situations like this. Stop following him blindly as he’s as much an idiot as many on the internet sometimes.

    • tungstenHead says:

      Response, reply and dialogue are features of freedom of expression; not bugs. It’s working as intended.

    • Bhazor says:

      They’re free to do what they want and we’re free to call them a bunch of wankers, call their work harmful and demand they explain, justify or remove it.

      Freedom of speech includes letting critics talk about it.

      • sophof says:

        You cannot respect their freedom to make it and demand them to remove it, it doesn’t work that way.

  31. yourgrandma says:

    Have to admit… i laughed really hard at this. And i kind of want it just as a conversation piece.

  32. caustic says:

    guys, guys, this guy just wanted a “conversation piece” since the visitor numbers where falling, so he just took this really shortsighted view and planted it on the website. viola, 11 comment pages, mission accomplished.

    cant see really to be offended about it, its a game where male and female are getting mutilated in every gory detail. So you now have a statue for that, great.

  33. says:

    It’s *almost* as if Deep Silver wanted to avoid falling out of the public consciousness. :p

    Hint: They’re doing it because their game released in 2011 and they want to stay relevant.

    Also, you guys arguing about this for pages on end are kind of hilarious. That, and Walker likes to ride this horse.

    Yes, it’s trashy; no, it won’t look good in anyone’s living room/den. I just don’t see why people on this site get so holier-than-thou about certain issues. We get it – the industry operates no the same screwed-up, sexually-obsessed, women-objectifying principles as the rest of western society. Arguing about it here and calling each other names is just noise.

    If you *really* want society to stop objectifying women, then do something more daring. Stop watching porn.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      yes, western society…………….. that the only place woman get sexualized and objectified……………………

      Sorry the middle east is even worse, and just take a look at china and japan.

      its world wide, not something western.

      If women want to stop being objectified, then they would stop weariing makeup, stop posing for modeling and advertising that focuses on that, they would not buy into all the media crap.

      But the real thing is, only some women want that. Others enjoy the attention, or like to model, even though they know men are only looking because they are hot. It’s why my wife dresses up for me, and he loves it when i call her beautiful, or hot as hell. Yes objectifying can be good. I love it when she objectifies me back. When she says she wants to jump me when i wear a suit. Damn right i enjoy it.

      If that is what the woman wants, good for her, that doesnt give another woman the right to say you cant objectify us. No we cant objectify you, the other woman is fine with it.

      Its all up to the individual.

      • Eliza Gauger says:

        ah yes, if women “want to” stop being objectified/raped/systemically oppressed all we have to do is stop wearing makeup. thank you. thanks.

      • Eliza Gauger says:

        you did it. you solved rape. it’s incredible that it took this long for someone to finally tell us the truth about misogyny: you see, women are asking for it by smearing themselves in concealer, eyeshadow and fake blood, just like this awesome collectible toy which is straight up giving me the rockinest boner you have ever seen. welcome to the bone zone, population: me, and this guy, who just got shortlisted for the Nobel Peace Prize for his groundbreaking work on the issue of “women who get raped because they wear makeup and want to be objectified”

    • gwathdring says:

      If you listen to yourself for a moment, you aren’t responding to specific arguments by specific people. You are lamenting a general stereotyped argument and then trashing it like you … I don’t know … have some kind of Holier-than-Thou attitude about it all.

      • says:

        Because I told people to stop watching porn if they want to be taken seriously objecting to sexual objectification? I can live with that.

        • gwathdring says:

          I don’t think you should be so comfortable with that statement. Not in the snappy, pithy, unqualified form with you made it in. Porn isn’t necessarily a clean industry, so I’m sure there are reasons not to provide patronage to some of it. There’s plenty of exploitation, both explicit and implicit, involved in the making of pornography and there would be merit to discussing whether or not it’s problematic to consume pornographic media along those lines.

          But if you mean that masturbating to a picture of someone you find attractive (barring exploitative or illegal methods of procuring such an image) is somehow wrong I have to disagree. Especially if you expect that consuming pornography (in general, without further qualification) somehow invalidates one’s ability to criticize problematic portrayals of women in non-pornographic mediums. One could argue that using something more complicated than a fetishized object as fuel for purely sexual gratification comes with it’s own psychological baggage. It’s rather difficult to masturbate to the abstract concept of contentment with a long-term romantic partner. Making love to a fully-fleshed out character with hopes and dreams that also happens to be a teddy bear incapable of giving consent could be seen as more problematic than utilizing a silent, unthinking sex-doll.

          It’s important not to be too incautious with words like objectification. Objectifying people isn’t wrong. It’s all about appropriate circumstances. Sex is fundamentally physical. Sometimes it can really hi-jack the brain. Two perfectly reasonable, consenting, loving adults can take leave of their senses at the height of passion. It isn’t wrong to, for a moment, simply want to have sex with your partner without experiencing anything more complicated at the conscious level.

          Abandoning even the restraints of talking about sex alone, we can’t see every aspect of every person all the time. And sometimes, it’s better if we don’t. It’s appropriate to objectify grunts in a video game if you plan on killing thousands of them. Shooting all of them and yet understanding each of them as a real human being would require you to be a terrible person. Objectification quite simply isn’t the problem. It’s a matter of appropriate context.

  34. HadToLogin says:

    link to – related. Kinda makes me wonder why John still didn’t wrote text about this… When he starts crusade against Nexus, I’ll be first to join.

    • Dominic White says:

      Skyrim mods would only be even vaguely comparable as a subject if Bethesda were selling a £100 collectors edition of Skyrim with a chained, bloodied and nude Lydia model as a bonus incentive.

      Going and pointing to something else only vaguely related to try and drag the discussion off-topic isn’t going to work, sorry.

      • HadToLogin says:

        Actually, it’s related, since you have people who for free are making tits and then you have HORDES of gamers who download those tits (and let’s not go into Lovers Lab territory…).
        It is bad that Deep Silver want money from people for that “creation”, but it’s not their fault gamers themselves prove they want this kind of stuff. Deep Silver is just unlucky that Dead Island wasn’t assiociated with ‘pr0n’, hence controversy.

        • derbefrier says:

          why not take it a step farther? Should we hold the websites that host these mods responsible? They are, for all intents and purposes, using sexuality to make money by hosting these files (Steam, Skyrim Nexus etc..) So if , like so many people here have said today that any form of sexuality shown is misogyny then why stop at a stupid statue no one will remember exists in a week? Why not attack these sites that , every single day, allow the proliferation of misogynist game content to reach millions of people. Dont you think thats a bit more destructive than this? In other words were do we draw the line? A question no oneseems to want to ask or answer.

          The reason this is a important question to ask is because its all ready gotten to a point where its out of control, This article is a prime example of that. Its a damn torso with boobs some one please explain how this ACTUALLY affects anyone. not I dont wanna hear your backwards logic that I have read that it wouldnt be sexist if there was blood on the you honestly not realize how stupid that sounds? Jesus people I know your hearts in the right good place but your acting more like an angry mob rather than sensible individuals.

  35. Tasloi says:

    Yeah, it’s crude, gory, sexist. No question. I’m not interested in a statue like this. Problem is if I were to say “don’t do this” then I also should say the same about something like the Piranha 3D movies. Yeah ok, the latter has both men & women on the receiving end but does the presence of a token male or female suddenly make it all acceptable? So, unfortunately no, I can’t bring myself to say “don’t do this”.

    • Eliza Gauger says:

      This isn’t about “you can’t do this”, just as telling someone not to say racist words isn’t about making it illegal to say racist words. We can, and should, be critical of media without policing it.

      • Tasloi says:

        Well they’re not my words, it literally says so in the article “don’t do this” and a good number of commenters voice the same opinion.

        • gwathdring says:

          Edit: Ah. You edited out the “isn’t this policing” part while I was still typing. I’ll leave my comment intact, but the bits about policing at the start are no longer directed at you since you removed that text.

          Policing is about enforcement and power and force monopoly. So no.

          Telling people to shut up isn’t policing, and it’s also awful. Telling people not to say certain things and explaining why you don’t want them to say those things, however, is also not policing. It’s dialog. It’s a functioning society. Let’s not get into the whole “Free speech means speak without pause” line of thinking here. I can respect the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of soldiers and homosexuals while standing on public property outside of the cemeteries and avoiding explicit, personal harassment as seen by the law. I would defend that right in court. But that doesn’t mean I’m ok with it and that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t stage a counter protest and that doesn’t mean I don’t want them to go back to their homes, keep their hatred to themselves, and just leave us in peace. It means I value rule of law, I value certain kinds of freedoms over others, and I want to deal with things I see as problems (like the WBC) in a constructive rather than destructive way.

          I want to eradicate things that harm society without unduly jeopardizing the things that make it better. That means I have to defend WBC so I can defend MLK. In short: telling someone to stop isn’t policing. It’s dialog. At least, as long as I’m willing to let them talk back.

          P.S. Walker is asking a gaming company not to perpetuate and exaggerate something he sees as a major problem in the industry. That’s not censorship and that’s not bad. That’s opinionated dialog.

          • Tasloi says:

            A quite common informal use of the word ‘policing’ would be behavior that admonishes, cautions or reminds. I’m pretty sure that’s even included in a number of dictionaries (if one needs that for it to be official). So I still stand by that.

          • gwathdring says:

            I was using criticism of your word choice as a launch pad for criticism of my interpretation of your overall argument and seeming sentiment. I did not supply my interpretation of the word policing as a way of asserting one definition over another but as a way of clarifying my stance on the differences between telling people not to say things that make me uncomfortable in a constructive and reasonable way, doing so in an unreasonable way, forcibly altering public conversations to suit my liking, and censorship. All four of these are different to me and that’s what my post was designed to evoke.

            I also intended to criticize something specific about the intersection between my interpretations of your use of policing and the usage of policing in the comment you replied to. I don’t remember exactly what and it wasn’t my main point but the gist was something like: it’s not destructive simply because it involves a personal judgment that something doesn’t belong here and quibbling with the original comment’s usage of the word policing makes a poor counter-argument. The comment seemed to imply that policing meant enforcement (and possibly censorship) and it definitely asserted that the “Please don’t do this!” kind of commentary is distinct from that poster’s definition of policing.

  36. wsworin says:

    This is really gross. I just can’t see anyone wanting this on display in their house.

  37. Keymonk says:

    Wow. Just wow.

  38. cheeley says:

    The devs are now backpedalling after the inevitable outcry – link to “For now, we want to reiterate to the community, fans and industry how deeply sorry we are, and that we are committed to making sure this will never happen again. “

  39. breakfastcereal says:

    “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,”

    Yes, obviously I have prejudices and I’m a horrible person, because I don’t care at all about media tricks like this one, and I partially disagree with this, not to even mention how convincing the “you’re monster if you don’t agree”-argument is.

    • gwathdring says:

      I think RPS, and John Walker, are OK with you not caring about their articles and saying “This isn’t interesting to me.”

      I believe that snide (and unproductive) comment was aimed directly at folks who give snide, unproductive comments about how RPS is going to the dogs because of all this talk about sexism this and sexism that–not because of specific arguments or issues but because of the general discussion and it’s ongoing nature. The folks who say things like this is some kind of radical liberal or feminist agenda–which it isn’t, no matter how off-base or incorrect you might find Walker’s specific opinions and articles.

      Walker said similar things in reply to comments like yours earlier in the thread. So I just wanted to clarify that RPS isn’t asking you to find it noteworthy–their stance on whether or not you think things are noteworthy tends to be “Well, we think it’s noteworthy so we’re going to post it and you’re welcome to dislike it.” Walker isn’t asking you not to disagree–his stance tends to be “You’re welcome to disagree sensibly, but if I think you’re being an ass about it I might call you out and be a bit of an ass back. Or I might just delete your post.”

      Whether you agree with Walker or find him to respond well to the people who post reasonable disagreements, I think this general stance is reasonable. The quote in question, though, seems necessarily snide … but I don’t know how much awful crap ends up in his inbox either. I’m also pretty tired of the ‘Guys, they’re just GAMES, can we stop talking about -insert anything remotely serious-?’ comments, though.

  40. x1501 says:

    Won’t somebody please think of the children women!

  41. JackDandy says:

    Hahaha oh wow

    Always nice to see John throwing a bitchfit and calling everyone a woman hater.

    • Eliza Gauger says:


      “woman hater”

      • MrUnimport says:

        It seems like he meant “bitch” in the gender-neutral “complain about something unworthy of complaint” sense! Drat language and its uncanny metamorphoses!

  42. The Random One says:

    This is absolutely horrible.

    And it has a hilarious twitter account.

    link to


    • Anders Wrist says:

      I lol’d.

      “there’s no *glorp* ‘arm in a little misogyny”.

  43. Thoric says:

    I find it hard to believe that there’s a genuine woman hater out there whose sole outlet is designing crappy collector’s editions. Riptide is hardly a popular upcoming title, so I’d guess this edition was made to evoke exactly the response it got. After all, a front page article on every major site, attached to a current hot topic that reels in about ten times more comments than anything else, ain’t too fucking bad.

    The damn thing even has “bait” in the title.

  44. Finjy says:

    Oh god, who cares. It’s a dumb statue. Nobody is going to buy this game specifically for that statue, except maybe as a weird oddity. Sexism is a real problem within the game industry, but this is reaching…I just can’t bring myself to be offended by this any more than I’m offended by B horror movies with lots of cheesy gore and nudity.

    That said, now I know about Riptide…I kinda liked Dead Island, at least multiplayer, despite all its flaws and false promises.

  45. pipman3000 says:

    did this article get linked on reddit or something?

  46. porps says:

    it’s a sad day when i read something like this on RPS. praps we should crusade against horror movies and video games next eh? Yeah its ugly. You might even call it horrific, or grotesque – as you’d expect from the zombie genre. I cant say i’d want it in my house but really dont see the need to go all daily mail about it.
    expected better from RPS

  47. NathanH says:

    Well this has been one of the most fun sexism threads we’ve had for a while. I wonder if it helped that nobody really liked the damned thing. Well, anyway, time for bed now, goodnight folks and best wishes.

  48. heldelance says:

    Something tells me that if this were a male body, the amount of outrage would be significantly less.

    I make this observation because I personally find it a little more disturbing seeing a female body mangled rather than a male body.

  49. The13thRonin says:

    If it were a statuette of a mans chest would it be anti-male?

    My bet is that more male gamers are going to complain about this than female gamers. And at the end of the day isn’t that the most misogynistic thing of all? Assuming that obviously female gamers are incapable of deciding what does and does not offend them and for standing up for themselves? I’m not a woman but if I was I sure as heck wouldn’t feel the need to have a bunch of self-professed white-knights stand up for me.

    The marketing ploy is obviously a relatively tasteless one but I find the idea of automatically assuming that just because it’s tasteless makes it misogynistic repugnant.

    • heldelance says:

      I’m talking about psychology here. When one sees in games and movie, a woman, child, or the elderly being killed, it generally affects the watcher more than when they see a man being killed. It’s not a misogynistic thing, it’s a psychological and evolutionary thing.

      Femmenazi ideology ignored, but deep inside a male’s psyche, women and children are to be protected. This is why most men would be repulsed by this statue.

      As for women, I can’t claim the same reason for them as I have said for men.

  50. wisnoskij says:

    When did art displaying the female form become misogynist?
    You know that misogynist means hatred of women, not love, right?

    • Shadram says:

      Erm… when the female form being displayed is simultaneously sexualised and violently assaulted?

      I’m honestly bemused as to how some people are not getting that this is mysoginistic. It’s an image of a mutilated woman that’s made to titilate a straight male audience. How can that be seen as anything other than displaying malice towards women?

      • heldelance says:

        Ask yourself this though, would you feel the same if it were a man’s body?

        What would you then call it if it were a man’s body? What would be your (and everyone else calling it misogynistic) reaction if it were a fat woman’s body? What about if DS made the statue so that it had a one piece or a t-shirt instead of a bikini?

        A while back, Alice Cooper released an album with a panty for the CD Sleeve, is that misogynistic as well? What if he used a pair of budgie smugglers instead?

        My point is that this whole “Misogynistic” thing has gotten out of hand. Portray a woman in the same way as you’d find a male, if it’s anything less than a heroine or a strong role model, it’s suddenly “Misogynistic”.

      • vondas says:

        I don’t see the malice. I think (perhaps naively) that “an image of a mutilated woman that’s made to titilate a straight male audience” has more to do with greed for publicity and money rather than malice towards women. They might hate women, or they might love them in a sweet, sick, misguided way, or they may not give a damn about them and exist in a state of utter unawareness that they actually exist. That is irrelevant to what they did here.

        Why is it so hard to understand that you can criticise this kind of thing WITHOUT claiming that the ones responsible for it must necessarily actively despise women?