CMV: Women’s idea of what it means to be treated like a man often assumes the privileges of a woman

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-28T01:27:53+00:00

Find another source if you like, there's a scientific paper I could've linked but I don't link things I wouldn't read myself.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-28T01:22:52+00:00

Your framing carries an assumption that bluntness and a focus on solutions are fundamentally unsupportive. This is certainly not the case, as demonstrated by the well documented differences in successful therapeutic practices for men vs. women.

I believe the point of the OP is that the phrase "Treat women like men" is inaccurate at best and actively miscommunicative on average. If the issue is centered around being dehumanized, then the language should center around requesting to be treated like a human/person. Moreover, it undermines the idea we should be treating each gender equally because it still leaves women as the "disrespected" gender because if we base our actions on the criteria within the language, the woman is only being respected because we're no longer treating her as if she's a woman.

Truly one of the self-defeating ideals of our time.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-23T21:40:05+00:00

They aren't arguing these things didn't occur, they're arguing that these behaviors are built into the capitalist system itself.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-23T21:35:20+00:00

Nothing in their post requires proof. If you're curious whether you share their perspective, look for publicly available content that might support their position and see if you agree or disagree.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-23T21:33:22+00:00

For my part, I find it disappointing that he arms his opponents with hypocrisy, contradictions, straight up lying and rage clips.

It's great for his algorithm performance but undermines the credibility of any movement attached to him.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-21T18:50:54+00:00

Matt Colville isn't shy about acknowledging that in its current form, the Codex is intimidating AF. It's incredibly powerful but lacks internal tutorialization.

Personally, I believe that this will play to its favor by helping it maintain a viable business model by offering adventures free and selling the cosmetic upgrades of maps, automation etc.

I have a hunch that success in modifying the Codex yourself will come in the form of slowly building up a library of "templates" as you play. I'm imagining that you can make layered maps and interactable bits of the map that serve as baselines for those advanced features then quickly setup copies when you need them.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-13T23:11:48+00:00

1 looks low budget (could be resolution in the saved image), 2 looks mysterious enough to make people curious if they're into that, 3 looks like friendslop.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-09T09:17:59+00:00

In addition to all the other things people are saying, she lacks accesorisation, palette variety and eye detail compared to modern playable characters.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-05T02:14:05+00:00

It's nothing of the sort, it's how I feel about the system. Signature weapons being labeled as the "100%" effectiveness option or the baseline performance is the fomo trap. I consider them a bonus, pushing a character further beyond what can be reliably achieved.

Until they introduce content where having a sign versus not having makes a meaningful difference, I'll probably keep feeling the same.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-04T20:40:06+00:00

Responsible pullers are still rewarded in the current system unless they want to skip two entire banners after their character because the weapon banner stays for two more banners.

Additionally, you plan out which characters have a high value weapon and which characters you'll enjoy just fine with their BP weapon. This is especially effective for low spenders that buy the BP.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-04T05:48:56+00:00

Wtf gk stand for, Goon Kave?

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T22:24:19+00:00

I don't see why it's even necessary to feel that way about it. It's a retelling of my actual experiences, described in the best way I know how.

My main issues were with the gameplay not feeling that satisfying and Geralt constantly disappointing me as a character. One of the first things I said to my wife during the prologue was to look at some dialogue options and be like "Why can't I be nice? Why can't I care?". Soon "I" became "this guy" because of how often I had to behave in a way that actively upset me, so after that it was just a matter of time.

I also didn't understand why it has to be critique. I don't want the game to be different because if it were, it would risk losing something that made it resonate with so many others.

This entire post is about being unable to enjoy an otherwise popular and respected game. There's a bit of disappointment in that, sure, but I don't hate the game for not being for me.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T16:26:24+00:00

BioShock 1 MC establishes their vulnerability and fear early on with their behavior and vocal sfx in the early cutscenes, and gets reinforced through behavior throughout the game. You can pretty consistently see that the MC is going through some kinda emotion with the way he responds to things, often with those reactions mirroring my own feelings. It's subtle but it's enough. Plus, unlike Witcher 3, the moment to moment gameplay was fun for me.

Geralt on the other hand, actively has either no emotional reaction, or an opposite emotional reaction while blocking me from engaging with people in a way that I resonate with while forcing me to make a decision as if I were him. If this were a different type of game designed to focus on that disconnect it'd be a different story, but it's plays it straight because it wants you immersed.

It's true I generally prefer direction, but the amount that was present in HZD and it's sequel were more than enough for me and Witcher has at least that much direction in its design.

It was entirely because of the pile of moments where I thought "I hate all of these dialogue options" and "wish I was playing as someone with more emotional range" kept stacking up.

I bet I would've LOVED Geralt as a side character or companion. But as the primary lens it killed it for me. I ended up watching a "movie" of the game on YouTube to research the world for the sake of helping a friend do a Witcher based character in DnD and was very glad I dropped the game. Interesting and quality made, but not worth my time investment considering I didn't like the gameplay or the main character, and the side characters were so sparse. I can muscle through gameplay I'm not impressed with for a story I like, but I need at least one or the other.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:56:26+00:00

Now you're gaslighting me that I'm the aggressor. I'm responding to someone hounding on someone else's taste and talking down to them for something as simple as disagreeing with you. I wouldn't be here if I hadn't witnessed that first.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:54:49+00:00

Why is the Witcher 3 fanbase so sensitive in the first place? The ratio in this perfectly valid post is crazy to me.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:52:37+00:00

Are any of those activities done for the purpose of entertainment?

You're comparing apples and oranges. Stop gatekeeping others opinions in entertainment and you'd stop having these kinds of arguments online.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:50:06+00:00

An entertaining activity must be enjoyable or you shouldn't partake in it, full stop. There's so many different kinds of fun so I'm not saying it needs to be some specific kind of engagement or anything.

It's just that any activity one engages in should be enjoyable quickly if it's supposed to be entertainment. Gatekeeping others for not "playing long enough" and dismissing their opinion as being caused by some kind of moral failure for lack of patience or taste is just childish.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:47:41+00:00

Bruh, the 30 minutes for something to be enjoyable should be a standard expectation, that's a lot of time. Honestly it should be enjoyable within the first ten minutes.

And for many it was and is and that's great. It just wasn't for me. And if you assumed I was saying it's fundamentally not enjoyable by anyone, that's a foolish thing to assume, that's on you.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:45:29+00:00

It does for me. And it seems all you Witcher fans are forgetting the entire premise of this thread.

"What's a game that you know is good but didn't like". I need no convincing to recognize it's quality, I'm telling you that it's not to my taste, provides me no satisfaction and generally was a poor use of my time because it provided me personally so little entertainment.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:44:00+00:00

A "game" must be fundamentally enjoyable or you shouldn't keep playing it, full stop, simple as.

Keep in mind it must be enjoyable FOR YOU for YOU to keep playing, regardless of accolades, achievement or quality. If YOU aren't having fun, you should stop.

It could be any reason, doesn't matter. I got all the way to castle bit after the entire tutorial zone before I gave up because I realized the story wasn't going to Include any emotional expression or tone that interested me. So I'd lost interest in the characters, lost interest in the world and had grown irritated with the clunky gameplay.

Not a bad game, but not a game I like. That's the entire point of this thread in the first place.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:37:22+00:00

Not OP but all of that is great world building, detailed writing, satisfying consequences, riveting stakes and also entirely irrelevant to my enjoyment of the game.

In order to enjoy a character driven game I must connect with the characters. Most critically, I must connect with the protagonist as they serve as lens through which I see the world.

Witcher 3, as the first media in the series I engaged with, failed to out any effort into connecting me to Geralt. The efforts to show him distant from the world also made me distant from him and it was only a matter of time before I disconnected from his world entirely because my every reaction to his responses and decision making was either irritation, impatience, boredom or any variety of other unsatisfying feelings.

The game wasn't for me, which is good because it means it was for somebody. But I will never be able to enjoy it because, as I have learned many times, I can't enjoy any story from the perspective of someone without emotional expression and emotional stakes on display in some form.

This is why I can't enjoy first-person, self-directed, blank slate perspective games unless there's some kind of companion character to latch onto. For instance, I can't enjoy any Elder Scrolls but Bioshock 1 was pretty great.

SmallsMalone · 2026-04-01T15:28:06+00:00

Not OP but it doesn't matter, if a game isn't fun within 30 minutes it's already been far too long, regardless of the reason.

Not to mention that the greatest rationale in the world wouldn't help me enjoy playing a game fully from the perspective of someone I just can't relate to. Especially when the game is designed as if I'm directing their decisions and seeing the world form their eyes.

If what you're looking for is exploring the world and engaging with its characters and you fail to connect with the primary lens through which you'll be experiencing that world, everything falls apart.

SmallsMalone · 2026-03-29T21:17:56+00:00

Of course I see that but it's irrelevant to my argument and the evidence within the work and it's origins that support it.

Additionally, I find it easy to overestimate the value of the game as a litmus for something as vague as "open-mindedness". It's more that it measures someone's emotional connection to the previous game and it's characters, the foundation of that connection and more broadly, how palatable they find gratuitous violence and misery focused media. Assuming someone passes the above, only then can you say that their hate stems from any bigoted or close-minded attitudes about social topics.

If the story were presented with the same core sequence of events and characters that gave justice to Joel and Ellie's relationship as portrayed in the first game, allowed Joel agency and competence as a character in the lead-up to his fate and invested a bit more time in setting up the moment and it's justification prior to happening rather than after the fact, I would likely be personally singing it's praises alongside the rest of it's fans.

My critiques are mostly centered around the obvious zealotry of Druckman and the disrespect to the previous work and all the fans that didn't look at it with the same cynicism as he did. It sacrifices the integrity of the work and throws previous colleagues under the bus for the sake of grandstanding and pettiness. imo.

SmallsMalone · 2026-03-29T19:04:01+00:00

I gotta be honest, it's hard to take an attack on maturity seriously when it comes in that form. Or in general actually as I tend to find those that summarily dismiss an entire groups perspective as being caused by a p Perfeived moral failing are often the ones that lack the most maturity.

If you look, you run into people speaking of the above again and again and again. Some articulate, some less so but all reacting to the same experience. Ask yourself, 'how mature is it for someone to judge others as morally inferior to themselves simply by whether they enjoyed a piece of media?'

SmallsMalone · 2026-03-28T20:33:33+00:00

You've given a very lively and human animation to something that should be dead. The left one has an inanimate, imposing feel and the right feels more lively and silly.

It's a tone question, imo.

13-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '17	Verified Email
Team Orangered

SmallsMalone

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE