This TEDx Talk About Sexism In Grand Theft Auto V Is Funny And Interesting (And Depressing)

This TEDx Talk About Sexism In Grand Theft Auto V Is Funny And Interesting (And Depressing)

It focuses most of its discussion on Grand Theft Auto V and the gaming community’s response to criticism of the game for being sexist. It’s a topic that’s been discussed widely on Kotaku and other websites, but it’s well worth watching this video to remind yourself of precisely how terribly people can react to what was an absolutely legitimate and fair complaint.

Nice work Paul!


    • It’s quite amusing though, some of the comments seem to completely miss his point and succeed in becoming the very people of whom he speaks.

    • I think he’s way off the mark. He says that saying that GTAV’s portrayal of women is satire is wrong because his “comedian friends” say that satire is a scalpel, not a blunt instrument. Well guess what, not everyone is a professional comedian, so just because the satire is not well-executed doesn’t mean it isn’t satire. He is saying that just because the portrayals in the game don’t fit his definition of satire the developers must therefore be playing it straight and are indeed massively sexist and wanted to put this sexism in a game and sell it(!)

      Secondly, saying that the portrayals of men are OK because the men have agency, backstories etc to explain away the douchey behaviour, doesn’t make sense, because he started off by saying that having three male protagonists was neither here nor there. So if the gender of the protagonists (i.e. the only characters that have agency) doesn’t matter, how can he complain that the female characters don’t have agency?

      I think his heart is in the right place but he is finding issues where in my view there are none, or where there are reasonable explanations for the material in the game. He’s getting caught up in the trendy hand-wringing that is going on about anything and everything that could possibly be interpreted as sexist.

      • so um…
        where were all the male prostitutes, female protagonists, male strippers and fictional sexy male advertising models?

      • I was a bit of a defender of GTA when all of the cries of sexism came out. I got really angry when a review simply said “I won’t play this sexist piece of shit”. I dismissed the presence of strippers and prostitutes being sexist as I believed Rockstar were just depicting the real shitty elements of a real world (and I still agree with that). I mainly defended GTA because I felt that the game portrayed both men and women as terrible people, rather than just singling out women. I felt that there were no redeeming facts about any of the characters in the game so it was actually the opposite of sexism, everyone was a douchebag so it seemed fair, but Paul’s comments made me realise that I was wrong.

        I think the fact that the only characters in the game who aren’t 2 dimensional are male makes the game sexist. Granted, it’s not sexism to the level of being a hate crime where the game needs to be crucified, but we have to at least admit the fact that it’s a bit sexist and it could have handled the representation of women better. It’s not an intentional act of evil from the developers, it was probably just an ignorant oversight that the writers only fleshed out the male characters and left the female characters as background props there only to respond to male dialogue. They just wrote the game from their own perspective, and they aren’t bad people for that, but its time that they tried harder for their entire audience. GTAV didn’t properly give any of the female characters a chance to actually become characters rather than just extras, and I think if Rockstar had offered even one significant and interesting female antagonist then none of this drama would have occurred.

        There’s no male agenda here to diminish women, and I think that most women understand that, its just that men making games often forget that women invest themselves in games too, so they continue to make games from their own viewpoint rather than realising that they have to be more open in their thinking.

  • As I said while I was playing V for the first time, Franklin was boring as fuck, dropping him in favour of a female character would have been a dramatic improvement

  • My problem is that story can be interpreted a number of ways. Trainspotting can be seen as both an endorsement and condemnation of drug culture but ultimately through glamourisation we find critique. If this is possible in video games, (and it is, it’s story) how are we going to be able to actually tell the difference when we’re jumping to a conclusion without looking at it from all the angles? Why are the constant articles expressing skepticism at complaints from various figures but none showing us what actually isn’t sexist? Why are we enabling every single accusation and insecurity as true and justified without fair scrutiny? It’s almost like Spike Lee is talking but people are actually listening. Sexism is a problem but why is it more of a problem than prejudice in general? And I’m not sure everyone should assume that their knowledge of storytelling is absolutely foolproof, or at least it is when they want to push sexism.

    GTA V is totally not sexist if you look at it from a fair angle. It’s almost as if depiction of women is the only thing people look at and almost always fail to put it into context with the story. The male characters are all despicable caricatures, are the women not allowed to be? Do we pretend prejudice doesn’t exist and force an ideal into a game that is intentionally devoid of them? Should we have had a choice of female characters? If so, then why don’t we change Al Pacino in Heat to a woman? Because someone wrote it from a perspective that they knew, you can’t and shouldn’t force them into a different direction or it ceases to be his or her creative work. A call for more female perspectives in games is totally fair and warranted, the condemnation of an existing series whose awareness seemingly surpasses those of its critics really isn’t.

      • Generally speaking that’s completely irrelevant and a perfect example of how people believe how infalliable their creative judgement is. Stories now have exact meanings and not interpretations. Why can’t a game be on the level of Trainspotting? If it touches on a social issue then shouldn’t it be discussed and not dosmissed?

        • Generally speaking your mild-to-strong MRA cheerleading activity on EVERY SINGLE KOTAKU STORY INVOLVING GENDER ISSUES renders yours point of view completely irrelevant.

          ‘GTA V is totally not sexist if you look at it from a fair angle’


          ‘The Holocaust is totally not a bad thing if you look at it from a fair perspective’

          ‘fair’ of course being ‘whatever I want it to be to justify my own point of view and attempt to normalise it and marginalise opposing views’.

          yes yes, men are horribly treated and we shouldn’t give women all the attention for REASONS.

          ‘sexism is a problem but there’s genocide in Sudan so let’s get our priorities straight’

          we get it, move along.

          • Your false equivalence aside, he had a very valid point and you proceeded to vomit all over your keyboard in response. You say that his opinion ‘ON EVERY SINGLE KOTAKU STORY INVOLVING GENDER ISSUES’ renders his point of view completely irrelevant, and yet you do exactly the same. Just another example of the ‘my opinion is right and yours is wrong’ mentality.

          • People usually come to these things and instead of having an exchange or ideas or a debate, they simply spend half a dozen posts explaining their already made up mind and why they’re never going to listen to or agree with the other perspective.

          • ‘GTA V is totally not sexist if you look at it from a fair angle.’ is EXACTLY a case of ‘my opinion is right and yours is wrong’ – and he does it every.single.time.

            It’s not a false equivalence, I suggest you learn what that term means. Both examples are the exact same mechanism of internal legimitisation and marginalisation of opposing views by suggesting that your perspective is the ‘FAIR’ one, and any others are ‘UNFAIR’.

            Given he trots out the same ‘sexism isn’t THAT big a problem’ every.single.time, it’s not hard to spot the agenda being pushed.

          • And you trot out the ‘this is sexism, even in situations which are only tangentially related to gender issues’ card “every.single.time”, meaning that my original point still stands. His opinion is just as valid as yours is, regardless of if you perceive an “agenda being pushed”.

            And to your point about my offhand comment on ‘false equivalence’, i suggest you look up falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus, it might clue you in as to why your original comparison between _alleged sexism in a videogame_ and _the genocide of an entire race_ is unfounded. But as always, dealing in superlatives gets your point across better, doesn’t it?

          • Oh, did I say it was sexism did I? Well gosh, no I didn’t! This may work for you on reddit but not here.

            Congratulations on your access to Wikipedia. However, your inability to grasp that the use of genocide is in fact a sardonic reinforcement of the point being made needs you need to wiki a few more words in future.

            Using the term ‘fair’ to falsely legitimise your point falsely legitimises it, whether that be in video games or genocide, despite these being very different things.


            And why yes, my views are only as valid as his and yours. They just stink of MRA bigotry and white dude handwavery a little less.

          • I can summate your response quite easily here: “It was sarcasm to prove a point, honest!”, “Reddit!”, “buzzwords!”, “I didn’t say that!”. But please, keep spouting off some nonsense about “looking up more words”, I’ll wait. You sound like the SRS trolls on /v/ at this point. “thatsthepoint.jpg”? Seriously?

            Fun fact, you implied that it was sexist, and that it was a problem in this case by belittling a very moderate and appropriate response to the issue at hand, waving it off as the ranting of an “MRA cheerleader”. So you’re saying the use of the term fair ‘falsely legitimises it’? Fun fact – fair _is_ a subjective term. I’m sure the OP knew that when he wrote it. I think you should reread losturtle’s original post, particularly focussing on the second paragraph.

            “My views are only as valid as his and yours. They just stink of MRA bigotry and white dude handwavery a little less”. Way to completely invalid all of your arguments with that ad hominem attack. Bravo.

          • Fun fact, you don’t understand the difference between ‘sardonic’ and ‘sarcasm’. Yes, they both begin with the same letters. No, not the same thing. Back to wiki!

            I didn’t imply ‘it’ was sexist, assuming by ‘it’ you mean GTA as per the article. In fact, if you weren’t raging out you’d have noticed my post completely and utterly deals with his comments in a very specific way and in no way mentions or refers to the article. He’s using shabby techniques to push an agenda which may or may not be intentionally sexist, and it’s a tiresome repeat theme on this site whenever an article mentioning sexism is published.

            If you think being called an MRA supporter is ‘ad hominem’, then I suggest you refrain from aligning yourself with those kinds of folks and posting your ZOMG SEXISM AGAIN comments as you are wont to do along with a small list of regular Kotaku pseudo MRA studmuffins. Yes, we know that you think it’s all overblown and people just need to vote with their wallets/calm down/realise it’s ART/not be feminazis/let developers EXPRESS THEMSELVES/understand MEN SUFFER TOO. Good for you!

            Oh, and although you may believe ‘ad hominem’ commentary invalidates an argument, it actually doesn’t. To illustrate, while we’re on the theme, pointing out that Hitler’s genocide of the Jews was a nasty thing and saying he’s a ()**(*&$ doesn’t invalidate the point simply because a nasty word was used.

            Unless of course you’re a keyboard warrior who wins arguments in their mind, in which case OK then.

            Finally, it’s quite delightful how you actually negated your entire argument and backed mine up with your second paragraph. Yes, using the term ‘fair’ is a subjective activity, and it’s aimed at falsely legitimising an argumentative position by making opposing views ‘unfair’. That’s what I said, thanks for beating that dead horse.

            Any fair and reasonable person would agree that I am correct.

            ps – I recommend in future you don’t say ‘fun fact’, especially repeatedly.

          • Yeah, apologies on that front, I did in fact read it as sarcastic. But kudos on the ‘wiki’ insult, really strengthens your position!

            So your entire argument hinges on the fact that people who oppose you are wrong, and you are right. People who disagree with you are ‘MRA supporters’, and by that token, even though it is ad hominem, they deserve it by way of simply disagreeing with your posturing. Nice projection, but I don’t often comment on these sort of articles, especially saying any of the ‘overblown/vote with their wallets’ etc stuff, purely based on the fact that getting into these nonsensical arguments with people doesn’t do anything but detract from the issue at hand.

            An ad hominem does in fact invalidate an argument when your whole argument hinges on the fact that the person you are attacking is not worthy of an opinion. Your entire argument is to the man (in this case, losturtle), so to belittle him with subjective insults just makes it futile. Nice try though.

            With your point to ‘fair’, you would say that it’s ‘fair’ to question the portrayal of women in videogames, particularly GTA V. Unlike you, I wouldn’t say ‘YOU ARE ON A CRUSADE FOR WOMEN ALL THE TIME THEREFORE YOUR OPINION IS INVALID’, instead I would recognise that your position differs from mine in what constitutes fair. Invalidation and disagreement are two very, very different things. You can’t apply an objective test to something that is subjective and use that as a point of contention with the person who wrote it.

            You managed to look like you said a lot without actually saying anything at all. I love an ‘informal filibuster’ as much as the next guy, but come on. It’s quite funny that you accuse me of being a “keyboard warrior”, when the majority of your posts in this comment thread, including your initial one which sparked this debate, was because you attacked someone for having an opinion different to yours. I don’t really think there’s anything left to say apart from that you don’t do causes you support any favours by attacking a person because of their opinion.

            Fun fact – I’ll say fun fact as much as I like, as I find facts fun, even when they’re not facts.

          • You may not be able to tell from the text but I am typing slowly, to see if that helps you understand things better.

            To stop you raging to the point where you burst something, I will point you to the post above mine – you see, my OP was a reply.

            Go read his post in which he utterly invalidates someone’s opinion by using the comment ‘Generally speaking that’s completely irrelevant’, aping the other poster’s use of the term ‘generally speaking’.

            Then look at the words I used to start my post with. See any similarities there?

            So if you want to blarble on about ad hominem, start by ripping him a new one and when done. realise the whole point of my post was sardonically commenting on his *reasonable* commentary (you having looked that word up now).

            You still, amazingly, haven’t understood what is meant by my criticism of the word ‘fair’.

            Yes, all views are subjective, welcome to philosophy 101.

            But when you use ‘fair’ as a term to position your argument, you are attempting to invalidate anyone who disagrees with you. You know, like you were moaning and whining about me apparently doing.

            So go rant at Losturtle1 for a bit, then we can discuss how AMAZINGLY every time there’s an article mentioning sexism the same old pseudo MRA nonsense is copied and pasted in here.


            We’ve heard the same yawn inducing handful of anti-sexism whines a hundred times, no need to keep rehashing variations on a theme, that’s why we have Reddit.

            If people feel the need, they should go start a standalone comment piece about it rather than interjecting into every one of these stories with petulant negatory waffle and weak insinuations of feminist conspiracy theories run by Patricia Hernandez, Anita Sarkeesian and their socialist New World Order Illuminati sisters.

            It’s not ‘trendy hand-wringing’, this stuff is OBVIOUS. Gaming is riddled with ridiculous amounts of sexism, for very observable historical reasons.

            It’s not 1981 any more, time to stop trying to sweep it under the carpet.

          • @burnside

            It’s not ‘trendy hand-wringing’, this stuff is OBVIOUS. Gaming is riddled with ridiculous amounts of sexism, for very observable historical reasons.

            Could you describe the most, or several of the most if you prefer, reprehensible examples of sexism in GTA5? Just so I can understand where you’re coming from a little bit?

    • The difference is, the men in GTAV are rewarded for being despicable. If the women in the game were rewarded similarly, instead of being maligned for simply being female, there would not be an issue. There does not need to be a female protagonist present to give balance, just perspective. It’s just white guy bullshit disguised as satire/irony. Having said that, I do enjoy the game, it is a remarkable piece of software.

      • Hang on, when you talk about the men being rewarded for being despicable you need to treat the PCs and NPCs differently. Of course the PCs are being rewarded, because of player agency. It wouldn’t be a fun game if the PCs were all killed or thrown in gaol for being arsehole criminals.

    • Nicely said, I would have thought GTA’s portrayal of women was unbalanced if the guys were faultless visions of heroism. There’s only a handful of characters in GTA who have any sense of honour or strength of character and they are women. I don’t know what the moral of GTA’s story was, but the message it kept sending me is that America is a horrible, corrupt place filled with horrible corrupt people.

  • I honestly wish some gamers wouldn’t get so angry every tine the “ism” words are brought up

    you can like something and be critical of it at the same time, if I look critically at games like the new tomb raider or bioshock infinite and draw conclusions that they have flaws in their representation of gender issues doesn’t mean I think less of their good points

  • Cool video, I can’t believe I haven’t heard of this guy before. Wonderfully articulate and funny. Gonna go and go on a youtube bender.

  • Just on that point about the Paparazzi missions – The whole time Franklin questions how inappropriate it is and in the end he gets screwed out of his reward. I don’t think this particular set of missions should be seen as sexist – I saw it as more of an attack on paparazzi to be honest.

    • It might be sexist if that stuff didn’t really happen. In Hollywood, bottom feeders go to despicable lengths to get that exclusive footage and meanwhile, publicists actually organize the creation and distribution of sex tapes. It’s a nightmare. It’s not satire, no, it’s just an exaggeration.

      • I’d also wager that a majority of the readership/viewership of paparazzi pieces is by a certain gender. Although current media seems to have that in mainstream news publications as well… Daily Telegraph today “Katy Perry “I prayed for big boobs” and SMH has not much better.

        • That’s what i feel like the point of GTA is, if there is one. It’s like saying: isn’t this all ridiculous? Yeah? By the way it’s the ugly world you live in.

          • Yep, totally agree with that… One point in GTAV comes to mind here:

            Trevor’s dialogue after the torture scenes while you’re driving the guy to the airport… in fact, the whole torture mission in general. Some would disagree but I found that to be a really visceral and uncomfortable experience, having to press the buttons required to torture that dude… and then when you’re driving him to the airport, Trevor comes out and explicitly states that torture is “useless as a means of getting information.” It seemed to me that Rockstar almost broke the fourth wall to get the message across there.

            Add that to the paparazzi missions and the (maybe lazy) allusion to the sub-prime crisis in the real estate missions and it definitely sounds like that’s what the overall message is (again, if there is one =).

          • You’re not alone there. For a while I was thinking…they aren’t actually going to make me do this, are they? Then I started wondering how it got past censors and didn’t seem to be mentioned in any of the controversies surrounding the game.

    • Yeah, the missions are definitely a stab at paparazzi but it felt pretty uncomfortable for the fact that Franklin questions it, but then continues to do it, several times, to the point where Beverly doesn’t even need to be around anymore for you to stalk celebrity women and take photos of them.

  • Bleh… Games as art… Way to make a fun past time sound wanky…

    Fun first and foremost…. Recognised as “art” a long distant 87th rank.

  • Eh, to be honest it came off to me as preaching to the choir. I think what irritated me the most was the use of internet trolls as strawmen.

  • It’s funny I was sitting there thinking that the figure on female gamers is due to the inclusion of all sorts of platforms like mobile gaming. With the focus on the type of games and platforms which are mainly male dominated.

    He brings up that this kind of position deserves the holder of it to be punched in their stupid face.

    He then a few seconds later says that mobile gaming and indie gaming is where most females are playing.

    Isn’t this a contradiction?

    He uses a straw man version of the position, ‘woman aren’t playing real games.’ Uses adhominen attacks, saying it’s a stupid position to have.

    While then saying the statement is essentially correct, females aren’t playing these games.

    Yeah there is an issue with sexism in games. I haven’t played any GTA games, I was under the impression there was a large level of satire going on though.

    However what’s his ultimate conclusion? Woman aren’t playing these games because they’re sexist? There’s a ‘no girls allowed’ sign on them. They should be included. Noble idea…. But so now games have to be made for everyone? I couldn’t play as a female character in Max Payne, is that sexist?

    I can’t play as a male character in Tomb Raider, is that sexist? In that game the men are all violent and try and rape her.

    It’s not a problem because these are the stories they are telling. I’m not defending blatant sexism in games, just the the suggestion that games which are male focused are inherently bad or wrong.

    This really does bring up serious freedom of speech and artistic expression issue. I’m not saying there isn’t a problem that needs to be addressed. Just that developers have to self censor and build games for everyone is a slippery slop.

    It’s similar to the video games are too violent attitude. That video games need to all be toned down so the youngest of gamers can play them. To be more inclusive of all tastes and age ranges.

    I don’t know, his talk really fell apart for me at the end. He really should address the way people react online to the sexist suggestion, being misogynist and immature separately.

    You get trolls and all sorts of shit online. Most of the time these idiots probably feel attacked themselves. This is where an approach of educating and informing people needs to happen. People are worried that the ‘PC’ police will come and ruin everything. They don’t necessarily have invalid concerns about certain kinds of video games, content ect being banned.

    They just want their games and to play them. It’s the escape and they feel it’s under threat. Mainly because most of them probably are completely aware the games are sexist, that valid concerns are raised.

    So address this. Don’t just assume all these people are in real life sexist, idiot scumbags. Just as in females not feeling comfortable playing some aspects of GTA is fine. Guys playing it and not feeling uncomfortable is also fine. Or playing the games and being uncomfortable.

    Also there is NOTHING wrong if the types of games and platforms men and woman play on is different. So much of society is split up. TV shows, movies, shops, clothing, everything really is split up and targeted differently. Often by gender. There is no need for a blanket approach on how to approach everything. I don’t go into Sports Girl and complain there’s no mens clothes.

    One also has to look, are less female gamers using PS and Xbox because of the games or not? So many other things can be going on. He mentions Nintendo does a great job at being inclusive. Yet just look what happened with their latest console. People aren’t buying or playing it. The issue on being inclusive might just have come up because that’s who the market predominately is.

    You know who knows the facts, developers and studios. They would know the number sof females who play which games on what platform. You can’t assume they exist in a male centric vacuum and are unaware of female gamers. Do you think they sit there and go, ‘there’s all these females who won’t buy this game, or would buy this game.’ Then ignore it. They are there to make money and make what people want.

    Over all his approach is just too simplistic a view of the situation. Starts of with legitimate concerns and issues but goes no where.

    I don’t know, it’s a very, blame the male nerdy gamers type attitude, which it’s so much more complex than that.

    Internet trolls to one side.

    No one has to be a gamer. No one has to like every game. No one has a right to not be offended. If 51% of the population and almost half of all gamers aren’t being catered for. Won’t the market realize this and change? This is simply where the focus on the type of games men play is flawed. Any developer in an every struggling industry wants as many gamers as possible.

    If Nintendo is great at being inclusive, why did their last console fail? It just goes so much deeper than what this guy alleges. So much more nuisanced and complex.

    • He mentions Nintendo does a great job at being inclusive. Yet just look what happened with their latest console. People aren’t buying or playing it.

      To be fair to Nintendo, they tried being inclusive with the Wii, and, if you look at sales, they won the console war that generation by about 20 million sales. Look at the DS and 3DS – also inclusive, also highly successful. They tried it again with the Wii-U, but failed because of a marketing blunder. I believe he’s referring to the former two, mainly because the world at large isn’t all that aware of the latter.

    • Guess what – there’s just as many stories you can tell that AREN’T solely focused on male centric perspectives.

      The fact the vast majority of games don’t acknowledge this is why this conversation needs to keep happening.

      It’s got absolutely nothing to do with ‘art’ or ‘creative freedom’, it’s the confluence of creative laziness and casual sexism.

      • But there’s just an assumption that video games in a majority are bias. What is the actual numbers of games which are gender bias to male?

        It’s different than just a male protagonist. A game with a male protagonist isn’t automatically sexist or bias. The same way one with a female character isn’t.

        If you’re including the number of gamers as those that use mobile devices. What extent of those games are sexist? Compared to neutral? In the whole scheme of gaming?

        There’s just a lot of assumptions here about the state of games.

        They’re including every form of gaming platform and device. Then picking one big title on limited devices to make assumptions on the entirety of all of gaming.

        I guess the core, even if the assumption that most console and pc games featuring protagonists are male ones. Is this sexism or just because the players on these platforms are mainly male. This isn’t addressed. It’s using gamers as a pejorative on every platform. Singling out games on specific ones.

        • And if you want gamers on these platforms to remain in those gender groupings, that’s the attitude you need to have.

          It’s like saying girls can only play with pink toys, and designing toy stores to accommodate this.

          You need to break down these artificial barriers first.

          • But the question remains is their necessarily something wrong if different genders group towards different platforms?

            Is this caused by the games or just the lifestyles and various other factors?

            There’s just a big assumption here, what are the actual facts?

            It’s not so much your pink analogy, but what’s being suggest is more, ‘girls don’t play with GI Joe, there for GI Joe is sexist, so lets make them pink and get rid of the guns.’

            No one’s saying the barbie dolls are too feminine and need cammo paint and guns.

            I just think, if there is such a big demand for something different on consoles, wouldn’t the developers be making it? The same way we have dolls for boys and dolls for girls.

            Games don’t have to fit a one size fit all mode. This extends to platforms, devices, genres ect. You might go, yes consoles are more male friendly, but you have then then acknowledge mobile platforms are more female friendly. Majority of mobile gamers are female after all. That may just be the way it balances out. Neither platform and what they offer is inherently wrong as a result.

          • The point is these are largely artificial divisions, put in place by society and marketing execs.

            Women are not genetically predisposed to play mobile games.

            Yes, there may indeed be some deep seated preferences. But you won’t know what they are until you stop trying to force people to fit predetermined roles.


  • Making a story about some misogynists in a misogynistic world doesn’t make YOU misogynistic. Noone is claiming these are characters and a world of values to aspire to. They are also violent mass murderers. Does making a movie about a homophobic character make the film maker homophobic? (ala recent tropfest confusion)

  • Remember when everyone just played video games, had fun doing it, and didn’t whinge like a room full of sleep deprived toddlers about issue A, opinion B and observation C?

    • Remember when only a bunch of fat nerdy guys in the 80s just played video games, had fun doing it, and didn’t whinge like a room full of sleep deprived toddlers about issue A, opinion B and observation C?


    • “An unexamined life is not worth living.”

      Socrates said that (sure, I’m paraphrasing but the spirit of the quote is the same)… Maybe I’m being factitious invoking that statement in the context of a discussion of video games, but the point is that without debate/discussion culture stagnates.

  • Kind of ironic that “AusontehInternet” at around the 6:00 mark has a avatar of Alison from The Breakfast Club >_>

  • I really don’t know why I still come here. I guess it’s the mixture of Japanese culture and the occasional piece of relevant gaming news, although I wish there was more of the later.

  • Am i the only one who thought that this guys high pitch voice and volume control meant that i was constantly fighting with my volume slider as i watched the video?

  • Truthbomb! – don’t get me wrong, i liked GTAV but it was sexist, yes Rockstar are notorious for being chauvinists in their games but still sexisim exists in more games than people realise, for example ; throw the hypothesis that Master Chief is a woman and prepare your anus (it’s brutal what they say) all I’m saying is the industry might need to be chang’d to accomodate the 47%

Log in to comment on this story!