Tell me RPS isn't obsessed?!

[Jarhead0331]

Mirth, you can't be serious. I think the agenda is obvious. It might not bother you, which is totally cool and I can understand that (since we all have a lot of questions about your sexual orientation  ), but, really, the agenda is not hidden in the least.

[Father Ted]

They were reporting on a new game that covers an unusual subject. It may not be relevant to any of us, but RPS is a site that reports broadly on games and the industry.

In the end, this^.

[Jarhead0331]

They were reporting on a new game that covers an unusual subject. It may not be relevant to any of us, but RPS is a site that reports broadly on games and the industry.

In the end, this^.

If you actually read what they write, you cannot deny an obvious gender/sex identity/racial agenda. Even their review of Kingdom Come Deliverance contained grips about gender roles and racial stereotype. Its ridiculous.

[mirth]

Mirth, you can't be serious. I think the agenda is obvious. It might not bother you, which is totally cool and I can understand that (since we all have a lot of questions about your sexual orientation  ), but, really, the agenda is not hidden in the least.

Seriously, what is the agenda? Do you really think that article is advocating for an asexual lifestyle? It's talking about an attempt to create games that speak to a segment of the population not represented by traditional games. Big whoop. Do you need to play those games? Do you even need to care? Not at all. But when you ask, "Why does RPS need to report on 'this stuff'?" my response is, "Why wouldn't they report on it?". Whether or not it is of interest to any of us here, it is gaming news that does interest a segment of RPS' readers and thus deserves to be reported on.

[Jarhead0331]

Mirth, you can't be serious. I think the agenda is obvious. It might not bother you, which is totally cool and I can understand that (since we all have a lot of questions about your sexual orientation  ), but, really, the agenda is not hidden in the least.

Seriously, what is the agenda? Do you really think that article is advocating for an asexual lifestyle? It's talking about an attempt to create games that speak to a segment of the population not represented by traditional games. Big whoop. Do you need to play those games? Do you even need to care? Not at all. But when you ask, "Why does RPS need to report on 'this stuff'?" my response is, "Why wouldn't they report on it?". Whether or not it is of interest to any of us here, it is gaming news that does interest a segment of RPS' readers and thus deserves to be reported on.

They aren't "reporting". They are editorializing...repeatedly...across multiple articles that do not even involve the subject matter of which they are editorializing on. If you cant even recognize or acknowledge or accept that this might annoy some people, then I guess there is nothing to really talk about and we can just agree to disagree.

[Arctic Blast]

I like the Flare Path.

Why RPS or any other organ thinks I need their opinion on issues of the kind referenced in the original post is well beyond me.

They were reporting on a new game that covers an unusual subject. It may not be relevant to any of us, but RPS is a site that reports broadly on games and the industry.

Yeah, pretty much.

[Cyrano]

To be correct, one would have to observe they were not reporting on a game, but on a series of games created during "Ace Jam", an event entirely dedicated to creating games with asexual spectrum characters.  For what it's worth, the grammar nerd in me finds the concept of asexual spectrum amusing, but I digress.

The article was about asexual representation in media, particularly games.

It spends far more time talking about asexuality than games.

And the entire point of the article is how great it is that now there are games with asexual characters.

As one of the subsidiary definitions of agenda is "the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group", surely they have one.

I am neither offended nor enraged by this agenda (and I enrage easily enough), and it's easy enough to ignore, but I prefer games to be judged as games rather than for a social good they serve or a perceived wrong they right.  It gilds the lily to observe that I cannot detect a single place where the author indicates whether a particular game is any good.

[undercovergeek]

The first requirements of all games reviewed on there are

Does it have ethnic minorities in it

Does it cater to the transgender community

Then the review can start

Someone will always find some source to justify an Asian and a black guy needing to be in a game about medieval Europe

What I would like to know and it happens a lot here - are these 'where are the ethnics?' campaigners members of that group or as I suspect is it white people looking for a cause to weep over whilst transgender and black guys play their games with a wry smile on their face

[mirth]

Mirth, you can't be serious. I think the agenda is obvious. It might not bother you, which is totally cool and I can understand that (since we all have a lot of questions about your sexual orientation  ), but, really, the agenda is not hidden in the least.

Seriously, what is the agenda? Do you really think that article is advocating for an asexual lifestyle? It's talking about an attempt to create games that speak to a segment of the population not represented by traditional games. Big whoop. Do you need to play those games? Do you even need to care? Not at all. But when you ask, "Why does RPS need to report on 'this stuff'?" my response is, "Why wouldn't they report on it?". Whether or not it is of interest to any of us here, it is gaming news that does interest a segment of RPS' readers and thus deserves to be reported on.

They aren't "reporting". They are editorializing...repeatedly...across multiple articles that do not even involve the subject matter of which they are editorializing on. If you cant even recognize or acknowledge or accept that this might annoy some people, then I guess there is nothing to really talk about and we can just agree to disagree.

It's a shame you don't have your own gaming site where you can write commentary and editorial content from your own perspective :P

[Jarhead0331]

Mirth, you can't be serious. I think the agenda is obvious. It might not bother you, which is totally cool and I can understand that (since we all have a lot of questions about your sexual orientation  ), but, really, the agenda is not hidden in the least.

Seriously, what is the agenda? Do you really think that article is advocating for an asexual lifestyle? It's talking about an attempt to create games that speak to a segment of the population not represented by traditional games. Big whoop. Do you need to play those games? Do you even need to care? Not at all. But when you ask, "Why does RPS need to report on 'this stuff'?" my response is, "Why wouldn't they report on it?". Whether or not it is of interest to any of us here, it is gaming news that does interest a segment of RPS' readers and thus deserves to be reported on.

They aren't "reporting". They are editorializing...repeatedly...across multiple articles that do not even involve the subject matter of which they are editorializing on. If you cant even recognize or acknowledge or accept that this might annoy some people, then I guess there is nothing to really talk about and we can just agree to disagree.

It's a shame you don't have your own gaming site where you can write commentary and editorial content from your own perspective :P

LoL. Point well taken. However, I suspect if I did that, we'd have three, maybe four readers.  O0

[JudgeDredd]

Mirth, you can't be serious. I think the agenda is obvious. It might not bother you, which is totally cool and I can understand that (since we all have a lot of questions about your sexual orientation  ), but, really, the agenda is not hidden in the least.

Seriously, what is the agenda? Do you really think that article is advocating for an asexual lifestyle? It's talking about an attempt to create games that speak to a segment of the population not represented by traditional games. Big whoop. Do you need to play those games? Do you even need to care? Not at all. But when you ask, "Why does RPS need to report on 'this stuff'?" my response is, "Why wouldn't they report on it?". Whether or not it is of interest to any of us here, it is gaming news that does interest a segment of RPS' readers and thus deserves to be reported on.

They aren't "reporting". They are editorializing...repeatedly...across multiple articles that do not even involve the subject matter of which they are editorializing on. If you cant even recognize or acknowledge or accept that this might annoy some people, then I guess there is nothing to really talk about and we can just agree to disagree.

It's a shame you don't have your own gaming site where you can write commentary and editorial content from your own perspective :P

LoL. Point well taken. However, I suspect if I did that, we'd have three, maybe four readers.  O0

I'd read it  :)

Where are the editorials on here anyway?

[Toonces]

The first requirements of all games reviewed on there are

Does it have ethnic minorities in it

Does it cater to the transgender community

Then the review can start

Jarhead's website's requirements:

Does it have guns in it?

Does it have crossbows in it?

Is it in early access with no end date in sight, but lots of DLC I can buy anyway even though the game many never be complete?

Then the review can begin.

;)

[bayonetbrant]

LoL. Point well taken. However, I suspect if I did that, we'd have three, maybe four readers.  O0

Sooooooo... we'd double our readership?  I'm not seeing a downside here.

[Toonces]

Where are the editorials on here anyway?

My understanding is there's another part of Grogheads outside of the forum page.  I'm not sure how you get to it, though.

[mirth]

LoL. Point well taken. However, I suspect if I did that, we'd have three, maybe four readers.  O0

Sooooooo... we'd double our readership?  I'm not seeing a downside here.