Well, i believe you’re wrong.

Surprise indeed! But majority are, aaaaand, not every game should cater to every gamer, if some of them want to target males, it is okay.

Everybody is the audience. You have ripped men, soft men, ripped women, soft women, big tittied women who apparently are lolicon fantasies according to Jason.

It’s not because they’re men, but who the audience is intended to be. A good counter example would be yaoi. It’s porn about gay men. Written very explicitly for straight women.

Visually appealing, yes.

I’m not big on generalizations so I will say that in my immediate social circle I have heard numerous times from women that they had rather see scantily clad women than men. I think that we all agree (in my immediate social circle) that women are way more sexy in that particular case than men. That being said, the…

Sorry, way ahead of you.

there is one problem with that armor, almost nobody wants to see half-naked dudes, otherwise it is ok

Oh, seems like the last paragraph of my comment above got eaten (damnit Kinja!). I meant to say that not only do we deserve to know, we also owe it to the many people he helped oppress. Awareness of the hideous views he held, views which he acted upon and views that shaped his legacy which is felt even today in India…

Just like no body wants to talk about how horrible of a woman Mother Theresa really was. ;)

Hypocritical behavior does negate a message. Because the context of your message is lost if you (for example) say "We should treat all people equally!" but then follow that up with "But not the Jews. Fuck those guys, they're scum." A message isn't an action, and while Gandhi might have done great things for SOME…

No, I absolutely don't think they negate his incredible work in any way. He has done a lot of good and deserves acknowledgment for said great deeds. But I have always found that when you have the mainstream and even a lot of specialist sources painting a saintly picture of someone for decades (which is what Gandhi is…

No what's worse is if you have BOTH. Attila ruins your land, and then when you try and recover said land, Ghandi's like "YOU ARE TERRIBLE PERSON. NUKES FOR YOU."

There is only one law... HIS LAW.

I think he just doesn't like Gandhi as a person in history, not that it needed to have any actual relevance to the article. His original point was that you just don't hear about that side of the man and, while I do not believe you to be saying we shouldn't learn both the good and bad of people, I think he has a point.

I…

I don't think that's what he's saying at all.

People should learn everything- both the good and the bad. He was just saying that your original comment was removed from the (amusing) information present in the article, and even requested that you somehow tie them together to make a line of correlation readers could…

You have a point about modern reception, however would it not male sense to teach good and bad of these people? We always learn about the peaceful protesting ghandi who freed his people but we never learn ablut the Ghandi who helped keep blacks in south africa subjegated and molested children?

Lmao so were supposed to forgive their beliefs because they were appropriate for the time? They can't be held accountable? I'm not making a direct comparison but Hitler did a great many things too.

He was also astoundingly misogynist (aside from being madly racist as was pointed out very clearly in the comments above):