Would every game benefit from all female casts?
No.
>>378833489
gender doesn't matter.
Having an all-female cast like Arcana Heart or Skullgirls seems like it would alienate certain potential customers, but it's probably more of an issue of theme.
>>378833489
Not every game, but some variety is good every now and then. Less sausage fests; less sexual tension from mixed groups.
>>378833489
I don't really care.
>>378833489
Gender is a spook, so are video games
All that matters is ego, my property
Waifufags must die before they can ruin more franchises.
>>378833674
>le sausagefest xD
fuck off
>>378833776
When did Stirner posting leave /lit/? Atleast read Der Einzige before missinterpreting his views please.
How exactly is a vidya a spook?
>>378833901
It is a distraction from the self, it stops individuals from fulfilling their egoism by corrupting and changing the self's desire, instead channeling and trapping the desire of the self into video games
Instead of following one's goals and obtaining self-realization, vidya traps the self within the game, offering imaginary rewards for meaningless tasks, further trapping the individual into becoming mere property
>>378834480
If it is to my enjoyment it serves my ego. As long as I have ownership over the vidya, and not the other way around, vidya is not a spook.
>>378834747
But vidya is designed to take ownership over you. It's designed to be addictive, like cigarettes or alcohol, Indulge in it and it makes you its property
It distract from life goals, and offers hollow, meaningless enjoyment. Thus, it is a spook
>>378833489
It would be an objective improvement if they are all cute.
>>378833489
Every game would undeniably benefit from a Rule 63 mode. It's part of the rules for a reason.
>>378833489
No because I'm not a disgusting waifu worshipping mongoloid.
>>378833489
Nope, it would ruin them. All games would objectively benefit from being male only, though.
Yes.
>>378835136
So very yes.
>>378834887
>meaningless
You fell right into your own spook trap.
>smoking is a spook
Feel free to search for a picture of Stirner on google.
>>378835276
>implying Stirner himself wasn't a spook
>>378833489
only when it makes sense
What a shame
>>378835502
Great post. I am sure you read him.
>>378833598
It matters to my dick.