Brontoforumus Archive

Game Boards => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Büge on January 29, 2013, 09:54:59 PM

Title: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on January 29, 2013, 09:54:59 PM
SINCE IT DOESN'T FIT ANYWHERE ELSE

I just sent an email to the Escapist Podcast people regarding... well...

Quote
Hi, podcast gang. I was listening to you last week and I felt compelled to respond to the discussion you had regarding the upcoming Tomb Raider game. I normally wouldn't do this, but I feel very strongly about the issues you raised and subsequently dismissed out of hand.

Susan seems to be forgetting that a game like Tomb Raider doesn't exist in a cultural vacuum. There are other forces at work here. Lara Croft has always existed as an idealized female written primarily for a male perspective. It's true that male characters experience violence. But historically, violence against males has not been sexualized the way violence against females have.

I'm nod "demanding that women be treated differently from men" as you guys put it in the podcast. In fact, I'd like to see women get better, more equal treatment. The trailer includes a moment where a bound Lara Croft is practically getting groped by one of the bad guys with the implication that he's going to have his way with her. Characters like Nathan Drake or Master Chief never have to worry about getting raped. Why should Lara Croft?

See, what I'm objecting to isn't the violence. I expect violence in games. Most women won't be trapped on an island and have to fight off wolves or drug-runners. Neither will most men! But 1 in 5 women in the USA will experience rape in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 71 men. That's what the CDC reported in their National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey in 2010. So if, like you say, women live with the threat of rape every day, WHY SHOULD THEY IN A VIDEOGAME? It doesn't make the game more "real", it's just exploiting a very real problem for the sake of titillation and controversy.

The fact that the game is written by a woman doesn't excuse the problem. Women can write bad, exploitative fiction about females just as well as men can. Stephanie Meyer's career is testament to that.

So why does Lara Croft need a scene where there's the threat of sexual assault? Furthermore, why does the trailer need to focus on THAT? There's a scene in Casino Royale where James Bond's testicles are whipped as torture. That never showed up in the trailer for Casino Royale, I'll tell you that much. I'm not saying that it SHOULD have, but why couldn't the producers of Tomb Raider focus on Lara-as-Agent rather than Lara-as-Victim, as they do for Bond? They could have done a very cool montage of Lara learning to survive, fighting off a pack of wolves with a hunting knife, and taking out the enemies guerrilla style. Instead they chose to focus on her vulnerability AS A WOMAN in the climax of the trailer. That speaks to me as symptomatic of a larger societal issue, one that we as consumers shouldn't dismiss.

Thank you for reading.

What do you think? How solid is my argument here?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on January 29, 2013, 10:52:43 PM
Plenty solid and concisely put.

I haven't been following the controversy (I stopped reading game news sites around the time Sharkey left 1up); the first I heard about it was when Gail Simone reblogged Greg Rucka's excellent comments on the subject (http://ruckawriter.tumblr.com/post/41180748602/ive-been-asked-to-make-my-answer-rebloggable).

In part:

Quote
Yes, certainly, there are characters where being a rape survivor is a crucial element of who they are. For some, it is even their core motivation. In the right hands, written with the proper thought and care and - in my opinion, and most crucially - honesty, yes, there is a place.

But as a short-hand for “justifying” why a character - specifically a female character - is who she is, or does what she does? I hate it. I’m inherently very suspicious of it, to the point of active hostility. I am leery of the prurient interest, and in the case of Lara specifically, I cannot escape feeling that is hard at work here. I read a quote where one of the developers, I believe, claimed that putting Lara in this position, under this threat, would make the player “want to protect her.” I found that both condescending and remarkably ignorant. Having not played the game, I can’t speak with any authority on it, but I find it hard to believe that was their motive to begin with.

but his whole post is well worth reading.

(The fortunate corollary to "Women can write bad, exploitative fiction about females just as well as men can": men can write thoughtful, nuanced fiction about females just as well as women can.  Greg Rucka's career is testament to that.)

Another point: I've been looking at "It makes the games MORE REALISTIC!" as justification for violence since the days of Mortal Kombat and Doom.  It's usually an argument made by mouth-breathers in defense of games that are not remotely realistic.  (That's not to criticize Doom, of course -- or Mortal Kombat, though I was always more of a Street Fighter guy.  It's just to criticize people who would describe those games as "realistic".)

And not just violence.  Try bringing up the gratuitous use of the word "bitch" in the Catwoman campaign in Arkham City and I give you three posts before someone argues that that's just realistic.

Because you know, when you're in a giant insane asylum/prison that contains its own amusement park and natural history museum, and a guy with mismatched clothes and half his face burned off is hanging a woman in a skintight catsuit upside-down (a point which her goggles, breasts, and stray strand of hair do not seem to notice) over a vat of glowing green acid, well, I mean, he HAS to call her a bitch.  Otherwise it would be unrealistic.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on January 30, 2013, 06:21:40 AM
Quote
But 1 in 5 women in the USA will experience rape in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 71 men.

Not calling you a liar, but I've heard (elsewhere on this board, in fact) that men are more likely to be raped statistically, because of prison. Of course, you have to go to prison for that to be true, so maybe those stats are cutting that possibility out.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on January 30, 2013, 07:28:40 AM
I would also point out the problem of symmetrical vs. assymetrical violence.

Gabe of Penny Arcade was all "HURR YOU SHOOT PEOPLE IN CALL OF DUTY". Except these people are shooting you back. By all measures except the most philosophical ones, they consent to retaliation. The few games where you're allowed to gun down unarmed civilians get quite a counter-reaction.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on January 30, 2013, 09:35:40 AM
My only problem with this argument is that you're going to look kind of petty focusing on the rape aspect of Tomb Waif, because the rape thing in the trailer is like a single dumbass's fumbling attempt to cop a feel which just ends up netting him a groin full of knee.  The entire rest of the trailer/game is a nonstop chain of "Lara gets beaten/stabbed/shot/bloodied/mopey" that's not really presented in the "sympathetic" way they're trying to claim.

It's not like rape hasn't been tossed casually into a video game for no good reason before.  [Removed - a bunch of examples people would use to strawman this conversation into oblivion.]  So why is Tomb Raider getting the shit for it when they get only a murmur?  Because Lara Croft is more sexualized?  Because it's blended into the greater abuse fantasy of the whole product?  Because it wasn't in the trailer?  Yes, yes, and yes, sure, but it also kind of feels that Tomb Raider has become a lightning rod for people's specific agendas, because, well... it's kind of an easy target.  Nobody's rushing to defend Lara Croft's modesty here.

I dunno man, it just feels like zeroing in on the shitty attempted molesting is missing the "JESUS" forest for the "Ew" tree.  Would you really think Tomb Raider is an okay thing if they had just avoided that one scene?  Because that's more or less the argument you made by saying that the rest of the violence is fantastic enough to be okay.

Personally I kind of just wish they'd scrub all of it and have Lara go back to jumping around on high things.  That's what I signed up for, damn it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on January 30, 2013, 09:30:05 PM
I got a response.

Quote
Because the threat of sexual assault is realistic to the situation. Men use sexual assault as a way to frighten women *because it works.* It’s a threat that’s almost guaranteed to unnerve any woman and keep them cowed. Certain kinds of threats work better than others – threaten to harm a child, and that child’s parent will almost assuredly fall in line immediately. Threaten to rape a woman, and she, too, will almost certainly fall in line immediately. Especially if up until that point, the woman has experienced a fairly normal life.
 
There’s no reason for the threat to not be in the game. In a situation where she’s surrounded by very bad men, it narratively makes sense. Also, when coupled with the fact that the man who gropes her is also the first man that Lara kills, it carries a great deal of weight. As I said on the podcast, we take killing very much for granted in games, but in real life, being pushed to the point that you actually have to kill someone to save yourself is monumental. I entirely disagree that the situation is in there for titillation and exploitation. It’s in there because it’s something that Lara would legitimately encounter.
 
And no one *has* to play through it – male or female. This is a piece of entertainment, and it’s up to the consumer to decide if it’s something they want to encounter or not.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on January 31, 2013, 12:33:53 AM
(http://brentai.brontoforum.us/images/lookoutnow.gif)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on January 31, 2013, 04:45:18 AM
Quote
Also, when coupled with the fact that the man who gropes her is also the first man that Lara kills, it carries a great deal of weight. As I said on the podcast, we take killing very much for granted in games, but in real life, being pushed to the point that you actually have to kill someone to save yourself is monumental.
If that is actually Lara's first kill and she spends the next few hours of the game dealing with what she's just done and not, say, clearing out every other living thing she sees (possibly while making one-liners) this actually makes sense.

Quote
Threaten to rape a woman, and she, too, will almost certainly fall in line immediately.
Someone report that man to the police.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on January 31, 2013, 01:01:59 PM
I can't even parse what he (or she) is saying. The best I can come up with is

"It's ok that rape is in this videogame because rape occurs in real life, and also rape is a really strong threat to get women to do what you want."
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: NexAdruin on January 31, 2013, 01:03:01 PM
And also if someone threatens to rape you, you can just kill them.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on March 06, 2013, 04:58:29 PM
Gail Simone (http://gailsimone.tumblr.com/post/44717767019/tomb-raider) says that, as squicky as the early promotion was, the game's not like that at all and depicts Lara as a strong protagonist -- but acknowledges that she hasn't gotten to the attempted-assault bit yet.
Title: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Royal☭ on March 07, 2013, 06:13:28 PM
Anita Sarkeesian released the first of her Tropes vs Women in Video Games today. I'm sure it's going to be a vicious, anti-man hit-job.

Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q#ws)

Or, you know, a reasoned, well-crafted look at a storytelling trope by an intelligent, well-spoken individual. Who would have guessed?
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 07, 2013, 07:02:24 PM
No one that's seen her youtube channel.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Caithness on March 07, 2013, 09:46:50 PM
My first thought on seeing the preview still was "Oh wow, are they letting you combine characters in the next Smash Bros.?"
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 08, 2013, 10:33:04 AM
Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q#ws)

Let the shitstorm begin.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on March 08, 2013, 11:23:40 AM
I like to think that for every enraged frothing Redditor there's a person going "Huh, yeah. The only time Princess Peach was in a starring role her superpower was volatile lady moodswings. Hadn't thought about it like that. That's... kind of shitty."
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 08, 2013, 12:36:04 PM
Having never played it, the gameplay you describe could either read, "Being in touch with your emotions is important and powerful," OR , "Man those on-the-rag dames amirite?"

I'm guessing the former interpretation is let down by other decisions throughout the game, right?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 08, 2013, 02:39:19 PM
Wait, it took a crowdfunded YouTube video for people to realize that Super Princess Peach was fucked up?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on March 08, 2013, 03:30:48 PM
People like us, no. But when she mentioned it in the video I laughed, then had to explain to my fiancee why it was funny to even mention Peach's turn as protagonist.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on March 08, 2013, 03:44:57 PM
I'd say it's kind of a good window into the Japanese mindset.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on March 08, 2013, 04:20:31 PM
I thought about whether Tropes vs. Women might address that most of the cited games are Japanese but her target audience is English-speaking.

But as I understand it, Japanese media is generally targeted towards men, with women-targeted media being mostly about romance -- and outside media, the country's overall culture is generally patriarchal, with conservative good ol' boys running government interests and big business.

So it may be a moot point. 
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Kayma on March 08, 2013, 10:09:53 PM
That was a pretty good analysis. I'm still sort of broken in my head about how they didn't use the Mario Bros.2 cast full on for New Super Mario Bros.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on March 08, 2013, 11:05:09 PM
There's a distressing reason "women-only" trains are a real thing that exist in Japan, and if you lack a dong, you should ride them whenever possible.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 08, 2013, 11:14:09 PM
This is not the video series I expected for $150,000, and honestly I'd feel kind of cheated if she only barely met her original goal. You mention there's Mario spinoffs and how it's a shame Peach is never playable in the main series, and you don't even pay lip service to the Paper Mario games, where Peach is pretty damn strong?

I do not see useful things that come from this woman trying to talk about and discuss a subject I care about.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on March 09, 2013, 04:24:16 AM
I don't, but noted.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Büge on March 09, 2013, 07:08:13 AM
She's talking about two of the most recognizable Damsels in Distress in the context of that role in their games. Peach never had a very active role in the series proper. She may mention Peach's role in the Paper Mario series in a subsequent episode. You also should remember that this is the first video and she has to talk about the subject in broad enough terms for non-gamers and non-academics to appreciate.

What were you expecting, exactly?
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 09, 2013, 12:25:44 PM
Something worthwhile of all the publicity surrounding this series, and not the same shit I've seen before?
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Büge on March 09, 2013, 01:08:46 PM
You have to consider, Lyrai, that this may be old hat for you, but may be news to someone who isn't steeped in the culture of gaming. Not everyone has a Kayin in their lives, or has Kotaku on their RSS, or even thinks about the semiotics of the media they consume. This brings some of the more pervasive tropes under scrutiny, and although it might not be the first of its kind, it will probably be the most widely received.

Honestly, I don't see the issue. Anita wasn't promising us the moon. A large part of the publicity came about because people were trying to shout her down and she got a huge outpouring of support and attention from word-of-mouth.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 09, 2013, 01:45:39 PM
I do consider that, and I am considering that viewpoint here, that this is supposed to be showing it to people who've never thought about it before. The problem is that it's a terrible video to show to those people, and will do more harm than good, both in the sense of being so hostile to the point of trying to make you feel like a shit for enjoying any game mentioned, and a complete lack of "Let's discuss this."

You want to be fucking useful to the trope and discussion? Don't treat your audience like they're irredeemably awful for inadvertently supporting it when they didn't know, treat them like you realized a problem and you'd like some help getting rid of it.

Hell, go big. Mention culture between east and west, how Japan itself is so hideously male-centric that it bleeds into all forms of their media, including their video games. These aren't just magical discs and cartridges that suddenly appear in front of you. People write them and create them, and if you want to attack the problem properly, you need to examine these people, and what could possibly lead them to crafting something like this.

Quote from: List of videos
1. Damsel in Distress
2. The Fighting F#@k Toy
3. The Sexy Sidekick
4. The Sexy Villainess
5. Background Decoration
6. Voodoo Priestess/Tribal Sorceress
7. Women as Reward
8. Mrs. Male Character
9. Unattractive Equals Evil
10. Man with Boobs
11. Positive Female Characters!
12. Top 10 Most Common Defenses of Sexism in Games

Oh, no, we don't get any discussion of culture, and we have to wait until episode 11 before we get 30 minutes of "Samus and Terra, except when this this and this happened"

I also would fucking love to see a discussion on God of War, if only because the most recent game has you shit-stomp the hell out of a woman in one of GoW's now trademark extreme gore porn QTEs, and then in the aftermath, you get an achievement, "Bros before Hos"

You want to talk about actually helping women in regards to video games, start by finding out who thought it'd be a good idea to do that.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 09, 2013, 01:59:36 PM
It is disappointing that months and thousands of dollars have no notable impact on actual quality of production outside of some extra time talking.

Other than that though no one, regardless of their feelings on her videos, should have expected these to not have misrepresentations, contradictions, and information from her examples that does not expressly back her point left out.

warning blah blah blah

"Let's discuss this."
teeheehee
You want to be fucking useful to the trope and discussion?
hahaha
You want to talk about actually helping women in reguards to video games
BWAHAHAHA

Come on Lyrai, none of those things promote attention and view-grabbing sensationalism. Let's get real here.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Classic on March 09, 2013, 02:33:06 PM
The problem is that it's a terrible video to show to those people, and will do more harm than good, both in the sense of being so hostile to the point of trying to make you feel like a shit for enjoying any game mentioned, and a complete lack of "Let's discuss this."

Doesn't she make her, "you can enjoy this stuff even if you're critical of them" disclaimer in the first minute? Yeah. There it is.
I don't care enough to re-watch the whole video carefully examining the tone to decide whether or not it's hostile to people who enjoy games but from memory, the most hostile thing she's got going on in the video is that flannel shirt.

But I mean, I've long been annoyed at SMBWii's decision not to take the 4 player dynamic straight from Doki Doki Mario Brothers, and had the "whenever these princesses are shown as feminine they get damsel-ized hella fast" thing driven home when I got angry as fuck over Other M. So maybe I'm too in the choir to see the flaws you're describing?

Mention culture between east and west, how Japan itself is so hideously male-centric that it bleeds into all forms of their media, including their video games.
Hey, I'd watch it. But if you do it, you're probably going to have a bunch of Movie Bobs calling you a racist (to say nothing of the Japanese).
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 09, 2013, 03:58:24 PM
http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/08/talking-about-time-and-eternity-blue-dragons-and-marriage/ (http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/08/talking-about-time-and-eternity-blue-dragons-and-marriage/)

Quote
Siliconera: Was Time and Eternity developed for guys Is this a game for girls? Parts of it feel like it’s a guys game, but in other parts there is a girl talk like when Towa talks about planning her wedding.

Kei Hirono, Producer of Time and Eternity: Actually it’s made for guys. When we created this game and when you look at the art, it’s the kind of female design that is pleasing to men, especially in Japan. This anime style is kind of geared toward guys in Japan. Within the game itself there is a healthy amount of "eros", you know, things that aren’t exactly for girls. We have never intended it to be for girls from the beginning.

This is just a kind of coincidence, but currently in Japan, it’s a lot more difficult for men than women to get married, so we thought it would be kind of an interesting theme to deal with. Also, I just got married recently too so this came together along with this plot.


SE: Is that why Towa/Toki has Drake accompany her and sometimes Drake would peep on her when she’s taking shower?

KH: Yup. That kind of thing.

SE: Why did you make Princess Towa/Toki the main character in Time and Eternity instead of the Prince?

KH: We wanted to break the mold and step away from the current trend of male hero. We thought that it would be very interesting to have a heroine instead of a typical male hero, to have a female hero playable character who is strong. It’s a different take on a stale genre, the Japanese RPG genre.
 
SE: And how does Drake fit in?

KH: Generally speaking, don’t women drag men along anyway? Well, especially in Japan.

In this instance, the heroine is a heroine soley as a marketing move
The producer admits this with no qualifications or anything even resembling the kind of fire he'd get for saying that over here.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: R^2 on March 09, 2013, 06:50:12 PM
11. Positive Female Characters!

Oh, no, we don't get any discussion of culture, and we have to wait until episode 11 before we get 30 minutes of "Samus and Terra, except when this this and this happened"

I'm hesitant to call Samus a positive female character after Other M, honestly. The producers and writers wanted to "treat Samus as a woman", so... they made her simper and cry and be in an abusive relationship with her CO.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 09, 2013, 08:29:18 PM
I imagine that, and the bit with the orphanage (for Terra) are going to be the deluge of qualifiers in the "Except when this and this happened"
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: DestyNova on March 09, 2013, 09:47:27 PM
Attempted Tropes. Vs. Men Kickstarter ended up with the men running away with the cash.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on March 09, 2013, 09:51:46 PM
Oh man, really? What happened?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 09, 2013, 10:56:48 PM
Someone is continuing to claim that they haven't run off with the money.
But everything on their steamcommunity page looks seedy and stupid.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Classic on March 09, 2013, 11:07:45 PM
Did I just not remember that orphanage thing properly?

After basically being the driving force for the plot in the first half of the game, she gets rescued by Celes after a battle with a beast that she's been holding at bay goes south and loses confidence in her ability to fight and says she wants to take care of the kids.

Later, when the party returns, the situation is reversed and she swoops in and turns the tide against the monster which had been harassing her wards, and seeing that the kids have someone to look after them without her decides to go and make the world a better place?

...
Am I happily ignoring some problematic content here?
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 10, 2013, 03:34:43 AM
Terra and Celes are two magnificent female archetypes, but neither are far from perfect, and I suspect if they're remembered at all, the woman will harp on the downsides of them far more than "The other 90% of the game where they are absolutely astounding)

Terra spends the intro to the game straight up mind-slaved before having it blown off by Tritoch. We're treated to a damn good story, up until the Esper-side of her goes berserk and she just wants to be a good yamato nadeshiko, and direct threat of the kids is required to shake her out of it.

Celes has that incredibly uncomfortable torture scene as well.

Beyond those two (three...ish) scenes, FF6 is very, very good in terms of gender equality, especially moreso for a Japanese game...

I could go on about how a number of the other FFs do pretty well in the gender department, going all the way up to Linear Corridor Simulator 2013, but that's diverting from the point: I'm saying the video series is of such hostility and nitpicking that it's going to focus on one or two small things to invalidate the character or game entirely, rather than accept that nothing is a perfect ideal, especially in something such as this.

EDIT: 4:30am is not the best time to be remembering bideo james. When my FF6-crazy friend wakes up tommorow I'll run that by her to see if I'm remembering it all correctly, but the point stands: Terra & Celes had one or two minor issues that will be blown out of proportion.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: R^2 on March 10, 2013, 03:42:17 AM
I think qualifiers like "especially for a Japanese game" and "in spite of BEEP BEEP FAR MORE INTERESTING PROTAGONIST COMING THROUGH" and "you do originally find them mindslaved/tortured" are exactly what the video is supposed to be talking about.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 10, 2013, 04:21:23 AM
Wait, that actually happened? I thought DestyNova was just kidding.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 10, 2013, 06:11:32 AM
It was about as realistic as this one (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/tropes-vs-da-orkz-in-vidya-gamez). People were literally feeding trolls with that money and suddenly they're surprised nothing good comes of it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 10, 2013, 10:27:04 AM
More info here. (http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/13224/article/the-mystery-and-fraud-of-tropes-vs-men-in-videogames/)
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Classic on March 10, 2013, 11:29:24 AM
EDIT: I feel like maybe I'm getting too tangent and need this threadsplit somehow. Urgh. It's mostly retreading stuff about how FF6 has some weird sticky points that have probably been written elsewhere.


I kind of give the intros for Terra and Celes a pass, because I felt they'd work just as well happening to Leo (excepting gender specific pronouns, etc. etc.) and also probably because I hadn't noticed some of the more odious tropes they brush against.

I mean, reviewing it, there's a disconcerting pattern, even if the individual decisions are justifiable.
By "justifiable" I mean, Terra's slave crown whatever gives us a justification for amnesia, introduces the empire as technologically advanced douchebags (as if we didn't get that from the opening scene), and makes it clear that Terra is an unstoppable engine of death. Sure, she's insecure and somewhat emotional but it all makes sense. I mean, outside of revenge, she doesn't have any stakes in the Empire/Returner's struggle as both sides are keen to weaponize her.

But when I think about how each character is introduced:


It seems like the characters who get rescued wind up being female. Is that something I should care about?
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Classic on March 10, 2013, 11:46:32 AM
The video series is of such hostility and nitpicking that it's going to focus on one or two small things to invalidate the character or game entirely.

I just did not see this hostility you mention (again, not willing to re-watch the video). I don't think Zelda for example is diminished by the titular character's many, many "damselized" incarnations and I don't think the video ever made intimations of that. Sarkeesian didn't even reach for her "preferring 'masculine' traits is systemic, societal sexism" card in this one.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 10, 2013, 12:09:56 PM
She admits Zelda is sometimes shown more capable, and labels it with basically "Damsel that helps" which reads to me "It still counts as DiD, no matter what happens."
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 10, 2013, 12:24:29 PM
She continues to speak of games and those who play them as if they suddenly pop into existence hating women. When she mentions Double Dragon, she says the name with the same amount of bile and venom you'd say the name of an STD, and then devotes a bit to how horrible it is that retro games with HD makeovers are coming back, treating the world to "this regressive crap all over again" , as if seeing Double Dragon Neon is going to make a 32 year old man suddenly walk up to a woman and punch her in the stomach, going "BIDEO JAMES SAID I COULD"

In regards to the hostility. There's also zero attempt to show how to attempt to fight it or do better, beyond "Make female heroes more!" which as the above post for a Japanese game illustrated, uh, isn't a magic salve.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Classic on March 10, 2013, 01:12:00 PM
She admits Zelda is sometimes shown more capable, and labels it with basically "Damsel that helps" which reads to me "It still counts as DiD, no matter what happens."
OK. I re-watched some of it. Although immediately prior to the "helpful damsel" comment (would Link be a helpful damsel in Twilight Princess?) she does mention that Damsel in Distress is a trope that happens to characters, not (necessarily) the sum of a character's identity. Which seems to be confusing the issue, since it implies that a "helpful damsel" isn't somehow the architect of their escape because they use some outside assistance.
Muddy, but not yet hostile.

I re-watched the Double Dragon thing and, yeah, that was (a tiny bit) hostile (as in, she got slightly angry after showing signs of exasperation with the trope in games outside of her big two). Especially considering the other weird gender politics at play in Double Dragon that are arguably more offensive. I guess using violence to dis-empower a woman is a personal gripe of hers?

It's just... When I compare this video to say... the Heavens to Metroid videos that Movie Bob did, his default tone seems more hostile (or maybe the right word is combative or contentious) than even that pique.

There's also zero attempt to show how to attempt to fight it or do better
Does there have to be one? The express purpose of the video is to say, "This is a trope. This is why I don't like it and think it's harmful." I don't think she even suggests that female characters should be player characters more often. The ambition of the video ends at presenting the trope as both pervasive and demeaning to women. This isn't a topic of discussion where the suggestion of an alternative is necessary (hell, it might be counter-productive).

EDIT:
OK, she suggests that female characters have their own adventures. Which isn't exactly being a PC but certainly implies it.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Mongrel on March 10, 2013, 01:54:40 PM
Okay, so I'm genuinely curious what you guys think about something that isn't really video game related, but still involves women as created by Japanese artists.

Specifically I’ve always wondered about the female protagonists of Masmune Shirow's work (note: I am only speaking of the actual Manga. Adaptations generally ruin the characters pretty badly).

Now, on one level, it's pretty clear that Shirow is just masturbating furiously as he panders to his own fetishes. God knows that if we talk about the images rather than the writing, this argument is over before it even begins. Shirow’s drawing style is hopelessly sexist, if not downright raunchy.

But does that invalidate the characters he creates?

First off, they're the product of harsh environments (military service in wartime or during periods of great social instability), but neither rape nor torture have been used as a shorthand for character building. On the flip side, their pasts are usually not referred to in any great detail, making them something of a cipher. Most crucially, they tend to be particularly talented. Their rise to rank is sort of implied by those talents, but this generally not stated explicitly (it is stated outright in GitS, though only briefly, in an offhand way).

Shirow’s female leads are shown as being pretty unique in their maturity and skill. Most ancillary depictions of women have them as more traditional stereotypes, but I’m not sure that’s as negative as it seems, because it’s showing valid differentiation between individuals and also more crucially because not all the minor female characters come off poorly. Several minor characters like the Russian Ambassador in GitS or Asada seem like equally strong or at least responsible figures.

The second Dominion book is especially interesting in this this, as most of the other women come off as are catty or ditzes. Yet if you scrape the surface most of them have some positive traits. Asada is depicted as eager and young without being stupid or crazy (in fact she seems much more reasonable than her squad commander, Leona), the puma sisters (yeah, I went there) are the product of an incredibly bizarre origin (basically, combat sex toys for Buaku’s gang in the original book) and are in fact willing and eager to learn; they’re written much more like children rescued from a war zone. Even the parking patrol girls are demonstrated to be “dizzy dames” not because of any inherent failing, but because they been put (allowed themselves to be put?) on fairly rigid career and life rails, with one of them maybe growing a little by the end of the book (debatable).

Deunan and Motoko tend towards a stern professionalism that dominates their other personality traits and this could arguably make them somewhat one-dimensional, but that also fits someone who is pretty hardcore career military/police. Some traditionally female traits do come out as a sort of motherliness that creeps into their command style, and distinguishes them (slightly) from some of their male colleagues and we do see small personal moments with friends or old acquaintances here and there.

The characters are not all interchangeable clones of one another, though they are certain done in a similar style. In Motoko’s case, her relationship with her command is a little more collegial (outside of Togusa, as her squad members are from very similar elite forces backgrounds. There the critical determinant of respect is skill, where Togusa is much more on the outs than anyone else.

Deunan of course is the only major character in any sort of romance that’s a core book relationship (Motoko’s relationship is little more than a plot hook, and of course, Al’s love for Leona is wholly unrequited). Romance isn’t Shirow’s strong point by any means, but he does a reasonably credible job of portraying a relationship that’s sometimes distant or strained because its principals are both two high-flying professionals at the same workplace. We also get more backstory for Deunan than anyone else, such as her father’s work and the racism her mother endured. Deunan is probably the most tempered and “whole” person out of Shirow’s female leads.

Even Leona - a character much closer to the traditional "loopy dame" begins to pick up some of Motoko/Deunan’s stern parental command style in the second dominion book, becoming much more responsible with her squad and losing a significant portion of her loopiness (though it still comes in frequent outbursts).

I haven’t mentioned Seska from Orion yet, so it’s worth bringing her up.  Seska is way closer to the traditional “One-dimensional Crazy Broad Protagonist” that features often enough in Anime/Manga. Certainly she’s no argument for feminism of any kind (unless you think that untempered aggression is somehow feminist). I guess you could argue that Orion shows that the character of his other female leads is more of a deliberate choice, rather than a rote habit?

It also bears mentioning that in a fun display of turnabout, many of the men are portrayed as softer-hearted, more gullible, or more domesticated than the female protagonist, sometimes to the point of their displaying far more feminity than the woman (though the last part’s usually played for gags).

So I don’t know, I think there’s actually something in all that. It’s a complex picture, not without its flaws, but maybe a positive one overall?

:tldr:

What I'm saying is that in spite of the hilariously misogynist visual window dressing that completely saturates Shirow’s work, I've always wanted to give him credit for the way he actually writes his characters, especially considering the fact that he's Japanese.  But I've also wondered whether I was in the minority there.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: Mongrel on March 10, 2013, 02:02:12 PM
Also, yeah, Threadsplit/merge time. Maybe the "What's wrong with being sexy?" thread? Or maybe an entirely new one.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: patito on March 10, 2013, 02:05:21 PM
Specifically I’ve always wondered about the female protagonists of Masmune Shirow's work (note: I am only speaking of the actual Manga. Adaptations generally ruin the characters pretty badly).

Stand Alone Complet is way better than the manga, just saying.
Title: Re: Re: Videodrome
Post by: on March 10, 2013, 02:08:24 PM
There's a bit in 2nd GiG, where (I think) the female prime minister gets sent a box of thumbs, and everyone tells her to not look. Her response is "Undue concern for women leads to contempt of them."
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 10, 2013, 02:19:34 PM
STOP MOVING THIS THREAD AROUND WHILE I'M RESPONDING

as if seeing Double Dragon Neon is going to make a 32 year old man suddenly walk up to a woman and punch her in the stomach, going "BIDEO JAMES SAID I COULD"
The thing that was most annoying about the specific mention of Double Dragon Neon is that Marian gets the trope of good girl turned villain, light arrows (gives you the power to beat the last boss) and even [spoiler]actually gets the last hit on the final boss[/spoiler].

But you know, those things aren't mentioned on the wikipedia page for the game so it's not her fault for not knowing to delve further.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 10, 2013, 02:38:22 PM
I've always wanted to give him credit for the way he actually writes his characters, especially considering the fact that he's Japanese.
Derailing, yeah, but when you make something especially considering something you're saying "for an x." That's like saying the Tropes Vs. Series is intelligent and composed for a woman.

I'm not trying to deny that Japan's gender politics are different than the US's (and are in some ways more regressive) but it will read as ethnocentric unless done very carefully. I mean, in America, we still have artists whose "thing" is "Strong Female Characters" just like in Japan.

But yeah, basically in all of the comic books I read, every so often I have a moment where I say to myself, "WTF is up with this omnipresent pandering bullshit?" that makes whatever it is I'm reading into a guilty pleasure.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 10, 2013, 02:50:56 PM
Specifically I’ve always wondered about the female protagonists of Masmune Shirow's work (note: I am only speaking of the actual Manga. Adaptations generally ruin the characters pretty badly).

Stand Alone Complet is way better than the manga, just saying.

Well, if I'm being less glib, I'd say that I want to deal with the original source material as opposed to an adaption.

Funny enough, as a result of all those adaptations, Shirow may be turn out to be one of the biggest promoters of serious female protagonists in Japan. I'd also give Miyazaki a lot of credit there and a probably a few other creators as well.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 10, 2013, 02:55:32 PM
Miyazaki is basically part 1 of my two part "JAPAN SO MUCH MORE SEXIST THAN US" sentiment rebuttal.
Part 2 is Joss Whedon's, glib little, I'll keep being the guy who writes "strong female characters" until people stop asking me why I write strong female characters.

Of course, you know, I know a handful of Japanese expats who sincerely and earnestly prefer the US's gender politics to Japan's.

EDIT:
Added the word "rebuttal".
The Joss Whedon thing is a reference to this: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/512752-q-so-why-do-you-write-these-strong-female-characters (http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/512752-q-so-why-do-you-write-these-strong-female-characters)

EDIT EDIT:
But actually, http://www.themarysue.com/reconsidering-the-feminism-of-joss-whedon/ (http://www.themarysue.com/reconsidering-the-feminism-of-joss-whedon/) maybe makes my point about Whedon better than that quote does. i.e., America isn't exactly a haven of gender equality either.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 10, 2013, 02:59:46 PM
I thought Joss Whedon was actually pretty open about the source for all his Strong Female Characters, in that his mother is/was a really outspoken feminist and raised him that way?

Miyazaki is basically part 1 of my two part "JAPAN SO MUCH MORE SEXIST THAN US" sentiment.

Buhwuh? Are you saying Myazaki's characters are sexist or encourage sexism? Or that they demonstrate particularly Japanese aspects of sexism?

Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 10, 2013, 03:06:22 PM
I will piss any number of people off though when I say I don't really like Joss Whedon's characters at all. Very few of them seem like real people to me and are much more like IMPORTANT! IMPORTANT! JOSS WHEDON HAS SOMETHING TO SAY AND WANTS TO MAKE SURE YOU KNOW THAT HE HAS SOMETHING TO SAY! 

I wouldn't call him a white knight, because he seems to come by the desire to write strong female characters honestly. It's just that he can't. They're staid and formulaic (though he at least manages to make them feel like formulas he created himself).

I guess I like some of the the male characters from what I've seen of Firefly? I dunno guys. Maybe it's one of those instances of someone trying too hard and accidentally squeezing the life out of their creations as a result
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 10, 2013, 03:09:20 PM
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Miyazaki's women are really excellent characters. Also, the sky is blue, etc. 
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on March 10, 2013, 03:19:16 PM
Miyazaki is very big on gender equality - he's spoken out very harshly of the entire moe movement -

Quote from: Spake the Wiki, Nevermore
In response to the growing otaku fetishization of cute female characters in anime and manga, Japanese animator and self-avowed feminist Hayao Miyazaki has stated:

    It's difficult. They immediately become the subjects of lolicon fetishism. In a sense, if we want to depict someone who is affirmative to us, we have no choice but to make them as lovely as possible. But now, there are too many people who shamelessly depict [such heroines] as if they just want [such girls] as pets, and things are escalating more and more.
    —Hayao Miyazaki, From "Why heroines in Miyazaki works: A collection of short excerpts"
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on March 10, 2013, 04:46:02 PM
My position has always been that nobody -should- care about my position on feminism, but I'll point out that yep, the majority of non-indie game developers (and a few of the indies) i've met is rampantly sexist. The programmers are jilted nerds who all end up dating beautifully vapid girls, the artists have portfolios with a breast per page ratio of over 300%, the game designers are completely clueless and just want to make exactly the same thing they played when they were 12 with no dirty girls spoiling the mood, and the producers are a good old boys network that sees most women as a machine that coughs up money if you give it games about clothes and partying.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on March 10, 2013, 06:58:49 PM
I've seen plenty on both sides as far as the "opposite gender as pets" bullshit goes. Girls tend to talk about "Boys" in exactly the same bullshit, gender-objectifying way when nobody is around to make them remember that doing that is exactly what they hate so fucking much when done by the other side.

Of course, men are predominantly the policy and media makers, so -- you know the fuck what, it occurs to me that you people are smart enough that I don't have to write the rest of this fucking bullshit because you know what I'm going to say anyway.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ocksi on March 10, 2013, 07:11:08 PM
Right, and the issue with dehumanizing women isn't that women don't ever objectify men. It's that men have always had the social power that their objectification becomes systemic. The Feminist Frequency videos have always just been a way of pointing these things out to idiots. There's nothing particularly groundbreaking. It's like when you're reading "Yo, is this Racist?" and you already know the answer to every question.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 10, 2013, 09:57:23 PM
NOTE: The answer is 'yes'.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on March 11, 2013, 01:13:03 AM
My only eyebrow raising thing about Sarkeesian that occurs to me, because her message is obvious to the point of being inconsequential, is where that 160k is going. I've seen her videos before and after the Kickstarter, and I really can't see a big difference. The research is sub-par, and the production values have gone nowhere.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 11, 2013, 03:04:40 PM
Starting to feel like some of the people on her think "I know about feminism, she's just stating the obvious" but then want to actually get mad at her for stating it anyway. Honestly it sounds like you guys are looking for ways to be hostile towards her. The thing about the "Obvious as to be inconsequential" argument is that the Kickstarter only got to $160k because of a barrage of sexist threats and abuse hurled her way. So yeah, it kind of seems like it needs to be said?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on March 11, 2013, 03:37:03 PM
This is a heated topic that needs intelligent people dissecting it and working towards a good resolution. If the research is flawed, reflected in your presentation of the facts, you damage the whole topic and become more fodder and reason for people to ignore it.

Anita Sarkeesian has produced a shitty video, with bullshit logic, and many glaring research errors that many people have picked apart without resorting to sexism against her. So I am quite mad at her for gathering a whole bunch of publicity and then producing a stinky fart in response, when she could have been using those Ted talks and interviews about the harassment that all but eclipsed the actual video series topic to try and further the cause and idea that she believed in enough to have a whole webisode series about it and run the kickstarter in the first goddamn place.

The trope also needs less men who feel women need to sit back and let men talk about feminism, dear, we'll handle it, you just run along now, but that's another conversation entirely.

Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 11, 2013, 04:42:59 PM
Again, you sound really angry about something but I'm not sure what. In one of your earlier posts, you claim she is attacking the audience, treating them like "like they're irredeemably awful for inadvertently supporting" gaming. Which, did you watch the video?

Quote
She continues to speak of games and those who play them as if they suddenly pop into existence hating women. When she mentions Double Dragon, she says the name with the same amount of bile and venom you'd say the name of an STD, and then devotes a bit to how horrible it is that retro games with HD makeovers are coming back, treating the world to "this regressive crap all over again" , as if seeing Double Dragon Neon is going to make a 32 year old man suddenly walk up to a woman and punch her in the stomach, going "BIDEO JAMES SAID I COULD"

In regards to the hostility. There's also zero attempt to show how to attempt to fight it or do better, beyond "Make female heroes more!" which as the above post for a Japanese game illustrated, uh, isn't a magic salve.

And again, you make it sound like she's attacking the audience when she really isn't. When watching the segment, she specifically calls out the Double Dragon scene being remade over and over as an example of the dehumanizing effect of the trope. She also makes no such claim that people will see it and imitate it. Her video isn't about people imitating video games, it's about how the trope reduces women to little more than property that is fought over.

You seem to be taking the video as a personal attack on yourself or people you know, rather than as a feminist critique of pop culture. Never once does she seem to attack the audience or fanbase of games. Hell, she even outright says that she grew up playing the same games and they have a "special place in her heart", but still thinks that's no reason not to discuss when women are sidelined and derived of character.

As for Zelda, she specifically has praise for when Zelda is allowed to help out and be an active player in the game. What she hates, though, is that once she falls into her traditional role, she gets immediately sidelined and robbed of agency. Keen viewers will also note that she specifically praises Wind Waker for the boss battle. But I guess that's not as fun as trying to play "Gotcha."

But really, it seems like people are going out of their way to nitpick the video. Anita is not hostile, her focus is on a singular topic (that's why she doesn't discuss Samus or the Peach's other appearances), and she has a ton of more videos to produce before she's done discussing a lot women's portrayal in games. Hell, she specifically states that the next video will pick up the same subject but for more contemporary games.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on March 11, 2013, 05:05:35 PM
I have watched the video once, and I have no desire to watch it again.

In reguards to Double Dragon, specifically, scroll down a few posts after I said that and Beat Bandit gives a nice dissection of how she fucked up the Double Dragon mention (It involves her probably only reading the wikipedia page for Neon)

And are we supposed to just accept a shitty video that does nothing to help a rather volatile subject? You sound like you're angry that people are analyzing and taking apart a video...who's purpose is to analyze and take apart something else.

It's a shitty contribution to a serious cause, so yes I'm angry.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 11, 2013, 05:10:57 PM
Haven't watched the video yet, but if she rags on Neon having the classic Marion kidnapping scene in it then it's a horrible, horrible sign of things to come.  Neon is pretty clearly making fun of how utterly ridiculous Marion's portrayal in the series is.  They are on her side.  Practically doing what she's doing, even.  This sort of thing is a bullet train to being written off by people on both sides of the aisle.

Again, haven't had time to watch it, fingers crossed that it's not as bad as it sounds.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 11, 2013, 05:12:54 PM
See, the thing is, while it points to the Neon remake, it then goes on to show about 15 or so videos from other versions of Double Dragon all depicting the same gut-punch to panty-shot opener.

And are we supposed to just accept a shitty video that does nothing to help a rather volatile subject? You sound like you're angry that people are analyzing and taking apart a video...who's purpose is to analyze and take apart something else.

It's a shitty contribution to a serious cause, so yes I'm angry.

How does it not help? She points out the issues and discusses their meanings. Again, she never condemns gaming or fandom as a whole. The people who seem to be getting all bent out of shape seem to be the ones who object to her talking about this subject at all.

I mean, the way you've been acting sounds mostly like incoherent rage backed up by nitpicking of tiny details while ignoring the larger message. Anita, or really anyone discussing feminism in games, owes know respect or formalities to gamers who are simply going to bitch about the video in the first place, then try and pick apart minutia to prove her overall point wrong.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on March 11, 2013, 05:16:14 PM
Because she is a terrible person to be talking about it due to a stunning lack of research, bad presentation, and quite a few things that have nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with her professional qualifications

Would you want Bush Jr to come talk to your company about Leadership Qualities?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 11, 2013, 05:16:25 PM
See, the thing is, while it points to the Neon remake, it then goes on to show about 15 or so videos from other versions of Double Dragon all depicting the same gut-punch to panty-shot opener.

That could be better or worse, depending on how it goes.  The very last thing you want to do is lump people together like that.

Again, withholding final judgement until I actually have time to see it.  I don't really need a synopsis until then.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 11, 2013, 05:19:15 PM
The trope also needs less men who feel women need to sit back and let men talk about feminism, dear, we'll handle it, you just run along now, but that's another conversation entirely

I gotta say that that watching an entire forum of men discuss feminism on the internet one of the more aggravating things you can do on the internet. It drives me nuts when this subject comes up for INTENSE DISCUSSION but zero women are actually present or saying anything.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 11, 2013, 05:22:04 PM
Isn't Lyrai a woman? But really, I'm trying to avoid feminism as a whole and talk about the actual merits of the video. If Lyrai wants to actually tell me what the stunning lack of research is, I'd like to hear it. If it's a reiteration along the lines of "Samus isn't in it" or "Minor quibble about Double Dragon", though, I'm not much interested.

Most of what I don't get is that Lyrai has claimed quite a few times that the video attacks gamers for liking the games, which simply is not in the video. I mean, this is a heated topic that needs intelligent people dissecting it and   working towards a good resolution. If the argument is flawed and reflected in your posts, you damage the whole topic and become   more fodder and reason for people to ignore it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 11, 2013, 06:42:57 PM
Isn't Lyrai a woman?

Yes? Why would that have changed? Not sure what your point is?

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but I was agreeing with her. It's fucking silly to have a discussion about women's rights with no women involved.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on March 11, 2013, 06:48:22 PM
It's fucking silly to have a discussion about women's rights with no women involved.

I hate to say that this is the stupidest thing I've heard all week, but it is. That's like saying that because I don't drive a motorcycle I can't advocate for riders to have equal road rights and laws to projected them (I picked this topic out because you do ride).
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on March 11, 2013, 06:52:08 PM
Seriously, to me this harkens back to who needs to know about feminism. A bunch of men talking about feminism, in my mind, is actually kind of the whole fucking point. Pretend I ended this with a pithy quote about teaching a man not to rape, not teaching women not to get raped.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 11, 2013, 07:52:51 PM
It's fucking silly to have a discussion about women's rights with no women involved.

I hate to say that this is the stupidest thing I've heard all week, but it is. That's like saying that because I don't drive a motorcycle I can't advocate for riders to have equal road rights and laws to projected them (I picked this topic out because you do ride).

Not really? Thanks for calling me stupid?

Nobody's saying men can't advocate for women. But firsthand information is useful to the conversation. I mean, yes, it's bloody important for men to be talking about women's rights, but should they not be informing themselves by actually talking to women at some point? Maybe even including women on a regular basis?

I mean, this seems absurd to me. I was agreeing with a woman who was saying it was important that women be a part of the conversation about sexism. Isn't telling me I'm stupid for agreeing with that practically sexism in itself? What the fuck, man.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 11, 2013, 07:56:55 PM
To add to the previous:

I am not talking about exclusion here, Joxam. I am talking about INclusion. The point is that women have a right to be part of the conversation. That they should be taking part. I am glad that there are women on this forum who felt like taking part in the discussion, when I have been to many places where women's voices are absent.

I am not suggesting that non motorcycle-riders women can't advocate for motorcycle-riders women, I am saying that it can get pretty fucking silly if you have a whole group of people advocating for motorcycle-riders women with no motorcycle-riders women among them at all.

Especially when the historical problem has been other people making decisions for motorcycle-riders women without their input.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on March 11, 2013, 08:07:59 PM
Still not sure where the 160k went. If she's not qualified to use it (ie lacks the technical skill to improve production quality significantly), hire someone who can with some of that money. I don't really feel like getting in to the rest of the discussion, because it's honestly poison at this point.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on March 11, 2013, 08:13:06 PM
Mongrel, we should include all the women we can, but our community isn't exactly brimming with them, my issue with what you said is just because that's the case doesn't mean we shouldn't try and have meaningful discussion about this, nor does it mean we can't.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 11, 2013, 08:31:19 PM
No, it doesn't mean we can't discuss it, or that it's not useful for use to raise awareness among our fellow MANFOLKS, but nor can you stay in the bubble forever. Without input from the people who are directly affected, it's too easy to build a skewed world entirely out of assumptions.

It's similar to sound science: It's good and necessary to explore theories, but sooner or later you do have to make actual empirical experiments, or the whole process is a farce. 

I mean, you're happy that men are talking, because it's men who are at fault. That's a relevant point, but in the end that just reinforces the two solitudes; the idea that the genders are separate animals. We all need to talk together if we're going to really learn anything. Certainly not all the time, but at least some of the time.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 11, 2013, 08:36:38 PM
Too Silly - Monty Python (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NS7Gkv4NNA#ws)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 11, 2013, 08:45:58 PM
Joxam,

Honest question, I am not trolling or trying to be an ass. I am just trying to maybe get across where I'm coming from:

How would it make you feel if you saw a group of entirely of white non-native guys sitting around talking about what they can do for native peoples?

Would you want to be a part of that discussion or offer your own input?

Is there a possibility that maybe some natives might see the fact that those random white guys are having the discussion as positive but that others might see it as paternalistic? I mean, I am not claiming any group is a monolith here, so I can see where there are different views.

Certainly, even if the random white guys had women, or natives, or blacks or whoever is the subject of the day among them, they can still be making foolish, paternal assumptions. But I'd like to think that if they're actively soliciting the opinions of people outside their echo chamber, that there's a better chance that a meaningful discussion is taking place.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: François on March 11, 2013, 10:07:18 PM
Mongrel, I understand where you're coming from, but I think your concern would mainly apply if we were excluding women from the discussion. Women's voices are welcome in this community, and historically always have been as far as I know. Besides, the problem of sexist tropes in video games is not just a problem that regards women, it's a problem that regards the human race, and it is sensible that any sort of human creature would be interested in examining it. If a guy is grossed out by a woman's demeaning portrayal in media, shouldn't he be allowed to discuss it with his peers even if no or few women are present at the time, especially if, to his mind, the issue is seen as "a human being's demeaning portrayal in media"? To me, "no discussion at all" is much worse than "some discussion regarding an underrepresented party", even though the latter is still far from ideal.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 11, 2013, 10:37:51 PM
Well the dialogue could be summarized as:

<Lyrai> It's good for women to participate in these discussions
<Lyrai> Men-only discussions have been part of the problem
<Mongrel> I agree
<Mongrel> I feel like it's silly to talk about this and not have any input from women
<Joxam> Are men's voices not valid?
<Joxam> It's a good sign that men are responding to this and having discussions
<Francois> Yeah, we're not excluding women from the discussion. Why can't we discuss this?

Maybe I just came off really badly, but I feel like a lot of you think I'm accusing you all of something I did not.

I did not say we exclude women here. Nor did I say men could never talk about this ever. Nor did I say we should stop talking about it. I did not say any of these things. I did not mean to imply any of these things. Please stop accusing me of saying such things. I was trying to be positive about our community. I feel like got fucking jumped here for pretty much saying "Hooray for the brontoforums".

I'm am saying I am happy when I see women are included and not happy in situations where - for whatever reason - they are completely absent. A group of only men is by definition a skewed sample of humanity. While there is some positive utility in a group of men discussing women's issues, such groups are limited in ways that mixed-gender groups are not.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: François on March 11, 2013, 11:40:44 PM
Oooooh, I see what's going on here. I saw this:

Quote
I gotta say that that watching an entire forum of men discuss feminism on the internet one of the more aggravating things you can do on the internet. It drives me nuts when this subject comes up for INTENSE DISCUSSION but zero women are actually present or saying anything.

...and somehow figured you were talking about us. Herp de derp nothing to see here move along citizens.  :whoops:
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on March 12, 2013, 12:45:06 AM
I guess if he wasn't talking about us fine, but then my question is why the fuck say that in the first place?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 12, 2013, 01:35:54 AM
I'd assume because watching any kind of forum with only men discussing the problems with gender equality is necessarily cringe-worthy and the conversation reminded him of this fact?
Also because maybe I_M is the kind of dude who can put his foot so far in his mouth you'd think he'd placed it in his own ass? Obviously, I'm in no position to criticize the dude for making comically bad word choices.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 12, 2013, 04:53:14 AM
Assumptions, they make... well we all know how the line goes.

I've just never thought of this place as a forum entirely of men or as being "male-dominated". At least compared to a lot of other places I've been to.

I guess if he wasn't talking about us fine, but then my question is why the fuck say that in the first place?

"Hey Lyrai, that's a good point and I agree with you." And then I provided my personal experience in that regard.

EDIT: Edited to try and sound less like a dick.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on March 12, 2013, 06:23:39 AM
It's hard to determine if I need to split this or not because this is very very stupid but at the same time I just woke up.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on March 12, 2013, 07:04:27 AM
I guess if he wasn't talking about us fine, but then my question is why the fuck say that in the first place?

It's germane to the discussion because it's precisely the thing Sarkeesian's been facing since she first announced the series.  And because it's a Youtube video, so obviously there is at least one comments thread full of mouth-breathers out there.

Haven't seen the video myself yet either, so not going to weigh in on its contents yet.

It's hard to determine if I need to split this or not because this is very very stupid but at the same time I just woke up.

Let's see if we can get it back on track.  Guys, are we back on the same page yet?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 12, 2013, 07:49:25 AM
The worst part of looking for this video was all the horrid, horrid videos that only warrant Anita's complaints.

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games: A Backer's Perspective (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kHOn1UsWao#ws)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 12, 2013, 07:50:13 AM
I guess if he wasn't talking about us fine, but then my question is why the fuck say that in the first place?

It's germane to the discussion because it's precisely the thing Sarkeesian's been facing since she first announced the series.  And because it's a Youtube video, so obviously there is at least one comments thread full of mouth-breathers out there.


Actually, she's disabled comments on the video itself, which has caused the mouth-breathers to start threads elsewhere about how she's censoring them and doesn't want to actually have a dialogue. Because YouTube comments are the perfect place for a reasonable dialogue.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on March 12, 2013, 07:59:09 AM
Still not sure where the 160k went.

As near as I can estimate, it went towards:


I dunno if this qualifies as her full-time job, but if so, there's probably a living wage in there, too.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 12, 2013, 08:55:27 AM
The worst part of looking for this video was all the horrid, horrid videos that only warrant Anita's complaints.

But Ted already found it for you?
Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q#ws)

Let the shitstorm begin.

Wading into the muck, it's a whole lot of non-complaints the worst being that the video is biased because it is "one sided". As if cataloging tropes and their unfortunate implications for women and how they seem to feed into sexism has another side. As if the "side" of, "shut ups!" and "nu-uhs!" and "this oppression isn't that bad!" isn't being massively represented by every tweet and response video.

Ffffuuuuck.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on March 12, 2013, 09:31:53 AM
I thought the "other side" is that men in media are portrayed as boorish idiots, sex maniacs, and stupid thugs rather than the noble Nice Guys everyone knows they really are. 

I am not saying it's not any less stupid an argument, but that's what I thought it was.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 12, 2013, 09:38:42 AM
Ah, the "FEMINISTS ARE TEH REAL SEXISTS" one.
Actually there are fewer of those than you might expect!

... Also I thought it was women whose gender stereotype included "sex maniac"?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: TA on March 12, 2013, 10:09:58 AM
I thought the "other side" is that men in media are portrayed as boorish idiots, sex maniacs, and stupid thugs rather than the noble Nice Guys everyone knows they really are. 

I am not saying it's not any less stupid an argument, but that's what I thought it was.

In a nutshell?

(http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/brown_hair.jpg)

There's rigid gender roles, oversexualization, heteronormativity, and all that same shit on both sides of the fence.  Patriarchy hurts everybody.  An instructional series that focuses on just one aspect of that is by definition incomplete.  It's like saying you're doing an analysis of racial issues in games, and then only looking at black people.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 12, 2013, 10:47:00 AM
Bullshit, TA. It's perfectly valid to discuss the effects of roles on women without discussing men. You keep trying the bullshit "Me, too!" tactic on any feminist discussion, and it's obnoxious and tired to see you try to shout down any feminist argument by trying to shove in a "But what about the poor white males?" critique. Anita is discussing, and this video focusing, how women are often sidelined or objectified purely for the sake of mostly male protagonists and antagonists in the stories. Trying to insists that she's wrong or unfair because she doesn't talk about White Male Leads is misleading and egoistic.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 12, 2013, 10:51:55 AM
It's like saying you're doing an analysis of racial issues in games, and then only looking at black people.
TA, the series is called "Tropes Vs. Women". So it's really like saying you're doing an analysis of racial issues in games as the relate to black people and then only looking at black people.

Which, you know brings up another class of non-complaint I'm noticing, the "THIS VIDEO DOESN'T MEET EXPECTATIONS I'VE MADE UP FROM NOTHING" (of which, TA, yours is the most palatable incarnation). Which covers basically every angle from the quality of the production to the "lack of depth" on the trope of DiD, including of course, that Sarkeesian has said nothing about positive examples or has marginalized those few to make her point (more coherent).

I don't think we need to review why the rigid gender roles and oversexualization (heteronormativity is actually one I have feelings of contention on?) heaped high on men and women is less problematic when it afflicts men though. Right? Statistics about the sex and orientation of content creators and content creation decision-makers, etc.?


...
...
Lastly, aren't three of those twenty pictures images of the default BroShep?

EDIT:
Added a few lines to the body to make a comment less vague and hopefully less assholish.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on March 12, 2013, 11:04:05 AM
I honestly don't see any problem with the depiction of men in videogames, since there's a lot more variety in protagonists. Women in videogames though, don't get enough variety.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 12, 2013, 11:14:39 AM
The over-blandness of male protagonists in games IS a problem, but it's a minor one, and one that fundamentally stems from the same root as the far more troubling depictions of women: videogames are, almost exclusively, designed and produced by and for straight, white, 18-30 males.

I'm going to assume you're just being contrarian for the sake of contrarianism, and don't seriously think that "BUT ALL OF THESE PROTAGONISTS ARE MUSCULAR, RUGGEDLY HANDSOME BROWN-HAIRED GUYS" is anywhere near equivalent to the way women are portrayed in videogames. Feel free to prove me wrong, though! :itsmagic:
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 12, 2013, 11:19:09 AM
I mean, there's still a lot of brown short-haired* white men. And I'd kind of like more diversity in protagonists. But most of the games I play either let me create my own persona, or as characters like this guy:
(http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y182/diowho/MicahRuneFactory3240161470.jpg) (http://therunefactory.wikia.com/wiki/Micah)
And no, that is not my proudest game series infatuation.

*I have revised this about six times and each time with a different unsettling interpretation popped into mind. So I decided to give up and go with the one that implies these are men for whom the carpet matches the drapes/banner molding/whatever and don't do any manscaping.

EDIT:
So how many of us are muscular ruggedly handsome white men with brown short-hairs anyway?
I'd make a poll but I feel like I'd piss on the premise with too many dick jokes and non-sequitors. Shiva Lingam means blue cock-and-balls.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on March 12, 2013, 11:24:14 AM
Lastly, aren't three of those twenty pictures images of the default BroShep?

It's really a pretty terrible image for purposes of this discussion.  I think it makes a good point on the sameyness of male protagonists in (1) current-gen (2) non-Nintendo console games, but...well, that's a pretty ridiculous set of limitations to choose in the middle of a rant about how incomplete the Tropes vs. Women video is in only discussing tropes involving women.  If we're to have a discussion about pervasive images in video games as a culture that influences its audience, any list that includes Dead Rising Guy but not Mario is sorta missing the point of popularity and cultural influence.

Shepard is an interesting example to look at because it would be pretty easy to dismiss FemShep as "man with tits" -- because, with the exception of a romance option or two, FemShep is literally EXACTLY THE SAME as MaleShep.

AND YET, instead we've got a character who's interesting and fully-developed even though the sex the player chooses is almost entirely irrelevant.

Granted, part of that is that both versions of Shepard fit into the "military hardass" trope, which yes indeedy is kind of a big one in games (and particularly in shooters, though that kinda stands to reason).  The notion of a soldier who's a soldier and whose sex doesn't enter into that?  Well, I'll grant that's a hell of a lot more aspirational than realistic, but given that we're looking at a Roddenberry-style aspirational future, it makes sense to depict a society that treats military women the same as men.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 12, 2013, 11:42:02 AM
Which apparently still needs regulations against making advances on the soldiers in your command, but whatever.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 12, 2013, 12:00:38 PM
Wait, I can't view images here.  Is somebody complaining that a default player model looks too much like a generic stereotype?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 12, 2013, 12:18:05 PM
TA has an image that has 20 images of about the kind of characters you'd expect with the words
VIDEO GAME PROTAGONISTS
Kids love brown-haired 30-something white males.
emblazoned at the bottom in the style of an unspirational poster. In this post:
There's rigid gender roles, oversexualization, heteronormativity, and all that same shit on both sides of the fence.  Patriarchy hurts everybody.  An instructional series that focuses on just one aspect of that is by definition incomplete.  It's like saying you're doing an analysis of racial issues in games, and then only looking at black people.

I also uploaded an image of the main character of Rune Craft 3, a dumb blonde (http://therunefactory.wikia.com/wiki/Micah), in this post:
And no, that is not my proudest game series infatuation.

EDIT:
So how many of us are muscular ruggedly handsome white men with brown short-hairs anyway?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on March 12, 2013, 12:26:59 PM
I think it makes a good point on the sameyness of male protagonists in (1) current-gen (2) non-Nintendo console games,

Mario is a white guy with brown hair. Game Set Match, Thad. :smug:
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 12, 2013, 12:38:00 PM
I think it makes a good point on the sameyness of male protagonists in (1) current-gen (2) non-Nintendo console games,

Mario is a white guy with brown hair. Game Set Match, Thad. (http://i.imgur.com/yDMa29U.jpg)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on March 12, 2013, 01:44:52 PM
TA, wow. Your example would make since if all there were only black people and white people (man v woman in this argument) but then, you would be perfectly within your right to only talk about only black people in a video about racism in video games.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on March 12, 2013, 01:51:34 PM
And I'll double post because this has nothing to do with my last post. I think the big problem that lyrai and a lot of other detractors of this video have is they expect it to take on issues and make statements that its just not designed to do. She's specifically education people about ONE specific trope per video, giving examples of it and explaining why it is negative for women. What she is NOT doing is solving all the problems about it in one 30 minute video, because that would be stupid and impossible. Nor is she diverging from her topic (this is actually good classroom practice my mom says (she's a teacher and she says that its best to only deal with one aspect of something at once for people to learn properly)) in the interest of keeping the videos succinct and on point.

No she doesn't point out all the other things you think she should about the games she's complaining about, because that's not what the video she's doing at this time is about. No she isn't giving you answers and making arguments about how the industry could be better, because that is not what the video series is about at all.

She's trying to educate you about the negative aspects of female characters in video games, and in some respects she's cutting through the layers of 'good' female characters to show you parts of them that are horrible. That is the point of the video series.

EDIT: Also, when I say YOU I don't mean anyone specifically, I mean the GRAND YOU.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Disposable Ninja on March 12, 2013, 03:17:17 PM
Since this seems like a good thread to put this: God of War: Ascension is renaming a Trophy (http://www.joystiq.com/2013/03/11/controversial-god-of-war-ascension-trophy-altered-in-upcoming-p/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter). It's being changed to "Bros before Foes" from "Bros before Hos" due to negative press.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 12, 2013, 03:45:41 PM
Man, if anybody needs to feel better about the level of discourse in this community, just check out that comments thread.

 :hurr:
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 12, 2013, 04:25:32 PM
She's trying to educate you about the negative aspects of female characters in video games, and in some respects she's cutting through the layers of 'good' female characters to show you parts of them that are horrible. That is the point of the video series.

This is why the only specific example I've been going to is DD: Neon. A lot of references she makes are easy to take issue with, and I'm sure there are great specifics I'm not aware of, but in that exact example she highlights Neon separately from every other game of the series, and speaks of it with disdain you would expect from someone talking about how their attacker is still allowed to be out on the streets, when it's actually the only one from the series that empowers Marian in any form at all. I don't expect every bit to be analyzed, but at least giving the appearance you're aware of it would lend well to her credibility.

And it's that kind of poor research that highlights the fact that production has seen no boost from the kickstarter. Now she's just giving out misinformation with a higher profile. Do I think her misrepresenting part of a videogame is going to ruin people's lives? No, but I do still consider it Anita's responsibility to inform people to the best of her ability, and that ability is still at the low standard set by Feminist Frequency.

Long story short, her making videos with amateur level research and presentation isn't anything new, but it is disappointing now that she's literally a professional.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 12, 2013, 04:30:34 PM
I think the worst part of that is if anyone tries to bring that sort of objection up, the response will generally be to dismiss the criticism "Oh well, you're just some [game] Fanboy", because it hinges on knowing whichever game series is on display well.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 12, 2013, 04:37:32 PM
Actually, my response would be something along the lines of OH MY GOD ANITA SARKEESIAN DIDN'T PLAY EVERY GAME SHE MENTIONS IN HER VIDEO ALL THE WAY THROUGH WHAT A FRAUD AM I RIGHT FELLAS???
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on March 12, 2013, 04:42:47 PM
She really can't make an accurate judgement on something unless she read/played all the way through. It exactly the sort of thing we object to when people like Jack Thompson start talking about videogames.

It's why the kickstarter money that she got being used for living wages is perfectly fine, because it's assumed that it's gonna be pretty much her job to play those videogames and be well informed about the stuff she's talking about.

If she got the DD neon thing wrong, then maybe she also got other things wrong that we don't know about, but the consequence is that we're gonna be misinformed about those things.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 12, 2013, 05:22:22 PM
Okay so is the beginning of the game still not about a woman being punched in the gut and hauled off? Her entire point is that the series is marked by how a woman is shown being beaten and stolen as a way of motivating the male characters to enter the plot. Just because she doesn't go into a full-on review of the game doesn't mean that the point she's making - about how women being hauled off at the beginning of the game is used as a plot point - is invalid.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 12, 2013, 05:41:46 PM
In a list of recent knife-based attacks, she is specifically calling out the man who was defending himself from a guy with a gun. That is the issue.

If you don't think details or facts are as important to whatever she wants her point to be, congratulations, you're her perfect viewer.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on March 12, 2013, 05:45:40 PM
On the one hand, you can't expect one person to have encyclopedic knowledge about every video game ever.

On the other hand, $160,000 can buy a whole lot of consulting.

On the other other hand, that's still a woman getting punched and kidnapped in the game intro. Even if Marian has her moments later, that at best puts her on a Zelda-ish "She helps sometimes but has to pencil 'heroism' into her day planner around all the kidnapping, cursing, petrification, and other stuff that takes her out of the conflict".
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 12, 2013, 06:06:19 PM
Okay so is the beginning of the game still not about a woman being punched in the gut and hauled off?

Fucking covered this.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 12, 2013, 06:09:49 PM
In a list of recent knife-based attacks, she is specifically calling out the man who was defending himself from a guy with a gun. That is the issue.

If you don't think details or facts are as important to whatever she wants her point to be, congratulations, you're her perfect viewer.
In a list of recent knife-based attacks, she is specifically calling out the man who was defending himself from a guy with a gun. That is the issue.

If you don't think details or facts are as important to whatever she wants her point to be, congratulations, you're her perfect viewer.

If you think nitpicking the minutiae of a 30-minute video without ever engaging the main point is effective debating, congratulations, you're a Men's Rights Advocate.

Okay so is the beginning of the game still not about a woman being punched in the gut and hauled off?

Fucking covered this.

I saw that. But, I still don't see how you're "No, really, it's a satire guys" viewpoint invalidates the "Her purpose in the intro is to motivate the male characters" point. I keep throwing that "It's shown next to 15 other videos of an identical scene" thing out there for a reason. It looks and feels just like the storytelling beats from over 20 years ago.

Like, I'm tired of the Double Dragon issue because it seems rather petty to try and discredit a 30-minute video by nitpicking one tiny part of it while saying absolutely nothing about the main points she brings up.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 12, 2013, 06:22:45 PM
All right, give me a second...

...oh jeez that's not the actual intro at ALL*.  That's some New Game+ shit.  Does she know that?

Here's the ACTUAL intro, and the entire first level for context:

Double Dragon Neon - Level 1 'Main street' Bro-op (co-op) - Jude & Joe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfxVF2sNvSM#ws)


* At least, without the ridiculously long buildup and the freeze frame, it just looks like a dude punching a girl instead of a big flashing sign reading "THIS SHIT IS RIDICULOUS."
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 12, 2013, 06:42:14 PM
If you think nitpicking the minutiae of a 30-minute video without ever engaging the main point is effective debating, congratulations, you're a Men's Rights Advocate.

...

Like, I'm tired of the Double Dragon issue because it seems rather petty to try and discredit a 30-minute video by nitpicking one tiny part of it while saying absolutely nothing about the main points she brings up.

Let me say this one more time so you don't have to actually read posts. I am only mentioning that specific detail because it is the one I am most aware of and thus comfortable with bringing up.

You may notice that I haven't said anything about how she mentions that Mario 2 doesn't count as having Peach as a character because it was a last-minute change to make the game more appealing to a wide audience that included her, but when the same thing happened years later to deny a female lead it's sexist. Nor that she's very definite about her disgust that women are always captured to be rescued where as men save themselves. Despite, you know, the Metal Gear series existing. I don't call these things out because there are tons of variables and opinions that are easy to take things off base.

So back to the 'main point' she made that things are getting worse if not staying the same. Her example? A game that is at least trying to get better, regardless of consideration of the limitations the story they were given. So yeah, I do think it's a point worth picking at.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 12, 2013, 06:53:16 PM
Like, I'm tired of the Double Dragon issue because it seems rather petty to try and discredit a 30-minute video by nitpicking one tiny part of it while saying absolutely nothing about the main points she brings up.

I'm glad you're tired of it.  Because it's going to happen again and again every time she brings up a game that's anywhere outside of her clearly limited area of knowledge, and maybe then you'll start to see why this is indicative of an actual issue.  Or everyone else will while sifting through your rants.

It's not that she got one thing wrong, it's that she got the one thing that wasn't extremely obvious wrong*.  It speaks to the thing that a lot of people have been worried about, which is that she's not the context expert that she acts like, and as this goes on she's in danger of piling on more and more "little misunderstandings" until the general public that she's addressing starts to get the entirely wrong idea.  At worst it will backfire and set her cause back to somewhere behind where she started, and more likely it will just bring people around to the issue but in a skewed, weird manner, like the entire parallel violence-in-games debate.  I want developers like WayForward to be able to be honest about how ass-backwards our gender politics and other issues were and are without getting all nervous that some movement out there is going to misunderstand their intentions.

Also, this is not going to help, but the very first other point I clicked to in the video while looking to see if she mentioned any other games like Neon had her saying "Zelda has never starred in her own adventure."  Which, while of course we don't like to admit it, is also wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CD-i_games_from_The_Legend_of_Zelda_series#Zelda:_The_Wand_of_Gamelon).  If I were random-clicking instead of watching the whole 30-minute monologue, you know, like most people, it'd be really, really easy to write this lady off as "Doesn't know what she's talking about."  Which, as Bal has mentioned several times, wouldn't be half the problem it is if not for the conceit that her words carry weight because she's literally paid to go do research on this stuff.


* In the sense that it's the only really modern or low-profile game she mentions, although after reviewing I have to grant that there's at least one other obscure title, Vigilante, which she doesn't really say much about (not that she has to).
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 12, 2013, 07:33:12 PM
Okay, I hadn't actually played Neon myself. After watching that video I can see that yeah, it's satire, but the only real flashing THIS IS A GAG sign is the "Aw man, not this again." line, so I can also see how someone could just take it at face-value.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on March 12, 2013, 07:35:40 PM
Well, that and the air-guitar thing at the end. No game can take itself that seriously when it involves air-guitar at the end of each level.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 12, 2013, 07:48:13 PM
Objection sustained.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 12, 2013, 09:57:46 PM
See, but "Not take itself seriously" and "Satire" are not the same thing.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 13, 2013, 01:22:16 AM
You still run into the problem you always have with sensitive satire like this: In the best case, your viewer understands the reference and context and gets to enjoy an in joke that makes them feel enlightened. In the worst case, you've presented something ugly to a viewer who doesn't understand the context and doesn't understand that it's meant to be a joke or absurd.

And you know, ymmv, but the lampshading doesn't change what I found uncomfortable about the scene from the arcade.


In the sense that it's the only really modern or low-profile game she mentions
To be fair, the focus of this first episode is the trope as applied to her two pet series. Apparently, the second part is about more modern examples. Not so hot on how that will roll.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 26, 2013, 07:39:03 AM
An unexpected Tomb Raider article (http://hellmode.com/2013/03/21/this-isnt-the-article-i-wanted-to-write-about-tomb-raider/)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 26, 2013, 07:56:56 AM
Tomb Raider: Other M
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 26, 2013, 08:24:35 AM
I don't know what that's supposed to mean in this context.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 26, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
Yeah, I don't get it either. :/
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on March 26, 2013, 09:33:21 AM
Yeah, Ted, did you read past the opening paragraphs?  Because the takeaway is that it's not like Other M at all.  It's not needless or exploitative -- the author argues that it's horrifying and haunting, but in the way that good storytelling is affecting; it makes you feel for Lara in a realistic way.  It triggered her, but in a way that led to catharsis and understanding of her own experience.

At no point did Lara break down crying and some dude swoop in and save her.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on March 26, 2013, 09:34:42 AM
Turns out the new tomb raider is a pretty decent game in every sense, who would have thought.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 26, 2013, 09:46:14 AM
Yeah, Ted, did you read past the opening paragraphs?  Because the takeaway is that it's not like Other M at all.  It's not needless or exploitative -- the author argues that it's horrifying and haunting, but in the way that good storytelling is affecting; it makes you feel for Lara in a realistic way.  It triggered her, but in a way that led to catharsis and understanding of her own experience.

At no point did Lara break down crying and some dude swoop in and save her.

I CAN MAKE GLIB ONE-LINE REPLIES TOO OKAY

YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Lottel on March 26, 2013, 09:49:54 AM
Apparently you can't!
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 26, 2013, 09:54:51 AM
::(:
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 26, 2013, 10:04:03 AM
If you keep this shit up Thad's going to ground us all for a week.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on March 26, 2013, 10:06:42 AM
One can only hope.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on March 26, 2013, 10:46:18 AM
He's gonna turn this car around and then we'll never go to Disneyland :(
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 27, 2013, 08:43:40 AM
Another take on Tomb Raider. (http://randomredux.tumblr.com/post/46410085488/okay-thats-tomb-raider-finished)

Quote
The game’s not Tomb Raider. It’s I Spit on your Tomb.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 27, 2013, 01:19:46 PM
Is there a name for the trope where a respectable female character gets turned in to a supermodel for a sequel?

See: Ashley Williams, Shaundi from Saint's Row.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on March 27, 2013, 01:27:31 PM
Did Ashley have a different model between games? I remember her looking the same, though I did barely see her. I think Shaundi was always supposed to be hot, but she was a dirty hippy in SR2, and all cleaned up gangster girl in SR3, plus new engine.

I can't think of any examples that aren't, like, generational gaps, or new artists. Though I'm sure it's happened.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 27, 2013, 01:31:58 PM
TVTropes calls it "Fanservice Pack". (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanservicePack)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on March 27, 2013, 01:33:15 PM
Oh man, as soon as I saw the picture I remembered like a hundred examples from Namco alone. NEVERMIND.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on March 27, 2013, 01:33:46 PM
Storywise Shaundi actually managed to close her legs a bit between SR3 and SR2.  The redesign is more or less due to the fact that everybody looks completely different in SR3, which I guess is an extended gag about the fluidity of people's appearances throughout the series.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on March 29, 2013, 09:12:31 AM
More than a Damsel in a Dress: A Response (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek#ws)

Another opinion on the damsel in distress.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 29, 2013, 10:04:55 AM
A little repetitive and she's trying a bit too hard to use overwrought language (sometimes it feels like you're in an HR seminar) which basically amounted to filler, but I thought it was really good when she cited factual data and invited Anita to do the same.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 29, 2013, 10:49:54 AM
That response not only features glaring spelling and arithmetic errors ("rite" is not right; 7-5.5 million is not 2 million.) Which annoys the shit out of me, but more importantly it misrepresents the assertions of the video it's commenting on.

A few major "misconceptions" being rebutted by the following:


I don't think I need to reiterate how "Its goal is to make money! It's not sexist/racist/homophobic!" is a great crock on it's own.
Nor how, by misrepresenting the assertions of the video KiteTales is devaluing Sarkeesian's work and research. The response seeks a source of offense while at the same time condemning Sarkeesian as doing the same for discussing DiD in the first place.

The editing glitz and pretense of being respectful are nice and put the video way above a lot of the other horseshit "rebuttals" rolling around the youTube scene, but it's still complaining about Tropes Vs. Women being something that it is not.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 29, 2013, 11:01:34 AM
I don't think I need to reiterate how "Its goal is to make money! It's not sexist/racist/homophobic!" is a great crock on it's own.

Haha, yeah, that was pretty bullshit, as was the "Well I have a different opinion, so clearly there is a wide range of opinions on this issue" statement.

I think Kite's premise of "Start with data and then make assumptions make conclusions" was actually quite good, but I suppose she doesn't actually follow through with that herself.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on March 29, 2013, 11:19:53 AM
KiteTales doesn't seem to understand what a character or story arc is, or how by the game focusing on the player character and not the DiD's struggles in captivity the narrative is implicitly making the DiD's struggle or anxiety irrelevant.

This was a big red flag that popped up around two minutes into the video. It became clear after this that her argument against TvW was built on sand.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 29, 2013, 11:36:38 AM
@Mongrel:
The problem with that is this video is ostensibly educational.
[Not diverging from the topic] is actually good classroom practice my mom says. She's a teacher and she says that its best to only deal with one aspect of something at once for people to learn properly.
That's the rough equivalent of begging people to "teach the controversy" over evolutionary theory (implying, that there is an academic controversy). Alright, to be fair, that is slightly hyperbolic. A better analogy would be suggesting talking about Haeckel's drawings, Nebraska and Piltdown Man, and the rampant misinformation bullshit of Owens in the first lecture of Biology 101. Or complaining that the first lecture doesn't provide the exhaustive list of 200+ years of findings confirming evolutionary theory.


Worse, as far as I can tell, KiteTales is arguing that Sarkeesian's video is not persuasive because "it's not really that bad"
the "side" of, "shut ups!" and "nu-uhs!" and "this oppression isn't that bad!" isn't being massively represented by every tweet and response video.
Or (more likely) because Sarkeesian hasn't provided the "assumptions" that go into her worldview (e.g. there was a thing called "The Patriarchy" that conferred privilege to men over women and its legacy still exists even if its overt mechanisms do not).
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 29, 2013, 11:43:27 AM
This was a big red flag that popped up around two minutes into the video. It became clear after this that her argument against TvW was built on sand.

That raises an interesting question.

Say you still want to make an old-style game where character A is kidnapped and character B has to rescue them. I mean, that can be a valid motivation. It seems a bit silly to just ban kidnappings forever in video games, or to retain them, but invert things so that only men are kidnapped and recused by women. So in what ways could you show someone (male or female) being kidnapped and have them still be an objective for the main protagonist, but still give the victim agency? How much time would a game need to spend to flesh out that character?

It seems like if the victim is going to remain the secondary character, then sequences where escape is attempted aren't really the best idea (it could be frustrating to the player to have to play out a pointless escape attempt which they know will fail).
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 29, 2013, 11:56:22 AM
I don't get why you're engaging in this "Ubiquitous vs. Banned" binary.

Anyway, I'm still annoyed at how SMBWii doesn't use the Doki Doki Mario 2 character differences in its design. Bowser could just as easily have stolen an inanimate macguffin. I've taken to asking myself, "Would this instance of DiD be dramatically changed by replacing the Distressee with a macguffin?"
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on March 29, 2013, 11:59:56 AM
It seems like if the victim is going to remain the secondary character, then sequences where escape is attempted aren't really the best idea (it could be frustrating to the player to have to play out a pointless escape attempt which they know will fail).

It doesn't have to fail. It could be an integral part of the game. The hostage might sabotage the enemy's fortress or escape on their own and meet the rescuer with valuable intel, or the hostage busts out and then the rescuer sneaks in to find an empty cell and then the rescuer gets captured and as the former hostage, you have to use your knowledge of the enemy's fortress to break back in and rescue the rescuer!

You could make it a two-player thing with split-screen or take turns or something.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on March 29, 2013, 12:33:02 PM
It seems like if the victim is going to remain the secondary character, then sequences where escape is attempted aren't really the best idea (it could be frustrating to the player to have to play out a pointless escape attempt which they know will fail).

It doesn't have to fail. It could be an integral part of the game. The hostage might sabotage the enemy's fortress or escape on their own and meet the rescuer with valuable intel, or the hostage busts out and then the rescuer sneaks in to find an empty cell and then the rescuer gets captured and as the former hostage, you have to use your knowledge of the enemy's fortress to break back in and rescue the rescuer!

You could make it a two-player thing with split-screen or take turns or something.

if i recall there was a very old co-op western (both as in, 'made in the west' and 'cowboys') game that tried that.

it wasn't every good.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 29, 2013, 12:57:04 PM
I don't get why you're engaging in this "Ubiquitous vs. Banned" binary.

I'm not. When I said "retain" that applies to any volume of use for that trope.

The thing is, if rescuing kidnapped people becomes too much of a hot-button topic, then game companies will just sidestep the issue by ceasing to use it at all.

I mean the idea here is that the trope contributes to negative stereotypes, so if it's not binary then how do we decide what consititutes an "acceptable" number of kidnappings?

Disclosure: I don't really care about the possibility of an effective ban other than it seems a bit silly. I'm not running around worried that game companies are going to ruin my male dominance fantasies or whatever.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 29, 2013, 01:04:10 PM
That's another interesting question. I wonder how many truly different simple motivations you can give a hero there are? I'm talking really basic one-sentence napkin plots.

- Loss of a loved one or loved ones ("A" version is Kidnapping, and assumes a rescue quest, "B" version assumes death and a revenge quest.)
- Loot or reward
- Defender (save your friends/town/planet from invasion or attack)
- Glory and fame
- It's your job/religious belief (possibly counts as two separate motivations)
- Penance, debt repayment, or the discharging of some other sort of obligation

I'm sure there's more than that, but I'm doing too many TPS reports to really go all in on brainstorming here. What else is there? Because I bet it's actually a relatively short list.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 29, 2013, 01:20:38 PM
"Curiosity" is a good one, but maybe too broad.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Doom on March 29, 2013, 01:28:31 PM
Look at all these people with bad tastes in video games.

Paper Mario - Chapter 2 - Peach Interlude (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWrlBfqWR9c#)

Yeah it's not really a new or complicated thing to have a "different perspective" sequence that is interesting, fun and delivers information to the player that wouldn't be possible from the main protagonist role!

Mass Effect 2 - Joker Gameplay (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBA3Oy3KhX8#ws)

Hell it doesn't even have to be a lady but I wanted to thumb my noses at y'all for not playing more Paper Mario before I said anything about Tropes Vs Women, of which I ain't got much to say. I'd hope she'd encourage game developers and writers to simply tighten their stories up and offer more interesting things and varied set-ups that perhaps make us emphasize and relate to damsels in distress or what not, rather than simply condemn the early majority of a brand new medium for using cultural values that have been relevant to humanity for 90%+ of it's existence.

But I guess if the Internet offered me $150k to play video games and make videos with Thesaurus-mouth I'd do it too.

(http://www.feministfrequency.com/archive/anitaandthetrolls.png)

so brave and noble

Man I find myself nodding along with the entire Zelda segment but then wincing every time she thinks she can take Mario down a notch. I'd say "pick your battles" but as far as I can tell Tropes vs Women doesn't really have a goal beyond "informative youtube videos", which is a Gold Medal in the "posting on the internet to pretend to fight for social justice" Olympics.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 29, 2013, 01:54:56 PM
Again:

...simply condemn the early majority of a brand new medium...
Doesn't she make her, "you can enjoy this stuff even if you're critical of them" disclaimer in the first minute? Yeah. There it is.


Though this bugs me:

for using cultural values that have been relevant to humanity for 90%+ of it's existence.
Are you forgetting that the pre-history of homo-sapiens way outweighs the recorded history, which is all we can use to confirm tropes? I'm not sure we even have the evidence to make a guess at that assertion. More importantly, you can't be saying that this legacy somehow excuses (rather than explaining) the choice to use DiD?

EDIT:
Trying to fix some typos and being a jerk.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on March 29, 2013, 02:01:43 PM
So in what ways could you show someone (male or female) being kidnapped and have them still be an objective for the main protagonist, but still give the victim agency? How much time would a game need to spend to flesh out that character?

It seems like if the victim is going to remain the secondary character, then sequences where escape is attempted aren't really the best idea (it could be frustrating to the player to have to play out a pointless escape attempt which they know will fail).

Not that BITCH Arkham City BITCH is a shining beacon BITCH of non-sexist BITCH portrayals of female characters in BITCH video games, but it at least gets the Batman/Catwoman dynamic by having him save her first and her save him later.

"Curiosity" is a good one, but maybe too broad.

Yeah, I was just going to chime in with the Second Doctor's "I was BORED!"
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 29, 2013, 02:23:40 PM
Another I thought of briefly was "MacGuffin retrieval", but that's really not an ultimate motivation (why are you getting this MacGuffin in the first place?). I guess that could be a standalone motivation in and of itself for a SUPER-basic game where they don't even bother with story, really.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on March 29, 2013, 02:33:29 PM
It seems like with the taxonomy you've already created, that goal is split amongst other motivations. Loot/Reward (maybe Greed is a better summation of this one?), Power/Fame (I like Pride for this one), and Job\Religious Motivation (I'll call this one Duty) could be the motivating force for the NetHack Protagonist.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 29, 2013, 02:59:03 PM
Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking.

And Duty is a much better word there, yeah.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on March 30, 2013, 08:03:02 AM
BioWare's David Gaider gave a talk (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/29/bioware-david-gaider-sex-in-video-game/) at GDC about sexism in the games industry.

From the comments:

Quote
If we don't have a problem with playing female main characters then they shouldn't have a problem with playing with male main characters.

Quote
If it has a large female playerbase then I don't see why they feel like they have to cater to women anymore since they seem to be doing fine. Or maybe they are lying and they want more female gamers?

Quote
Anyways I would just like to say that I'm getting tired of this kind of articles. If there were truly a lot of women who wanted to game, then why are the majority of the community here male and if you go to any other game forum or website, you will see mostly males.

Quote
We could say that plenty of American women want to play American football but yet you never see any real attempts for women to form their own NFL simply because there isn't enough demand for it. It is different for gaming but it's just an illustration. If women really wanted in, they would be in by now. They've been able to get everything else that they wanted.

Quote
Have a good life and I hope someday you will wake up from this sexism delusion. It's just as bad as the blacks who pull out the racism card every time a black person dies in a game.(emphasis mine)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 30, 2013, 12:48:25 PM
Ohhhhhhh wow.

That is some tone deaf shit alright.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on March 30, 2013, 12:55:57 PM
For a moment I thought those quotes were from the talk itself and was about to wonder, did the rage cause some kind of quantum singularity to form, and that's why I never heard anything about it from friends that went there.

From the COMMENTS makes much more sense.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on March 30, 2013, 01:14:12 PM
Oh man, I made the same mistake, thinking those were actually David Gaider lines. Hahah whoops.

That is still some tone deaf shit though!
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on April 11, 2013, 10:51:01 AM
So one of the people I subscribe to through youTube liked this heap of trash:
RE: Damsel in Distress: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj29-hepBiA#ws)

On the plus side, I've pruned my subscription list a little bit.
On the downside, I've got "The Amazing Atheist" coming up in my recommended videos feed now and don't know how to kill it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on April 11, 2013, 10:55:52 AM
You can pretty much kill an atheist the same way you'd kill any other human.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on April 11, 2013, 10:57:46 AM
I- I more meant how youTube is recommending that I should watch his videos since I was sick of his sexist BS back in '06 or '07.
... But if there's no other way.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on April 11, 2013, 11:24:38 AM
Youtube should have some algorithm for keeping things you dislike (as in click the dislike button) out of your recommended watch list.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on May 03, 2013, 06:08:14 AM
This seems like as good a place as any to ask this:

I saw Tomb Raider is 50% off on Steam this weekend. Now, I'm going to wait for the eventual $10 sale if I do pick this up, but I wanted to ask: So is it a worthwhile game in the end? And is it an actually good fun game to play?  (Reviews for the latter seem to be okay, I guess?)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Niku on May 03, 2013, 06:23:40 AM
It's pretty good, and actually longer than many big budget games are these days when it comes to bang for you buck (just doing the main story and occasional side stuff got me like 15ish hours of gameplay as far as I remember?).  There is some deeply annoying and dumb shit in the game, and it basically ditches everything that made the LAST Tomb Raider reboots good (i.e. tombs) but moment to moment it's pretty fun for a third person shooter / semi-explorey game.

The biggest narrative problem is the fact that they drop the whole "realistic survivor character" thing in about twenty seconds at the nearest opportunity to turn Lara into a remorseless murder machine, and not doing that would have made for a far more interesting game to boot.  Oh well.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: François on May 03, 2013, 07:48:36 AM
Hoho wow, I almost bought it a couple days ago at the big Squarenix sale for like 12$ off, but I never got the account activation e-mail and went "eh, fuck it". So, I guess I'm glad their forcing me to get an account got in my way long enough to save me twice the money.

In other news. The most recent kerfluffle about Dragon's Crown (if you haven't heard of what's been going on, this Kotaku piece is a good place to start (http://this Kotaku piece is a good place to start) if you allow a broad enough definition of the word "good") gave me a thought. Said thought probably needs refining but let's see.

Where was everyone when Odin Sphere and Muramasa had good strong female characters and positive plot developments? Vanillaware's women have historically been pretty rad. (I'mma spoil the shit out of those games now. Be warned.)

-Gwendolyn is a valkyrie, a proud warrior who views an eventual marital life as a fate worse than death. Her father Odin eventually allows her to be shackled to a love spell on account of ancient tradition, a fact which makes him out to be a coward and which causes him no end of guilt and regret. However, the man she is promised to, Oswald, refuses to activate the brainwashing part of the spell because he finds the process loathsome, and instead allows her to make up her own mind about what to do with her life. Eventually, every character who was okay with the custom of giving women away as prizes ends up dead, and the world is left in the hands of Gwen and Oswald who both have first-hand experience about how that stuff is complete BS.
-Mercedes is a little fairy girl who ends up leading her nation to war against Fantasy Viking Land and she is a right badass.
-I don't remember much of Velvet's story but I'm pretty sure she Got Shit Done too.
-At the end of her story, Momohime has the opportunity to go through with an arranged marriage to a man who admitted to not loving her. She essentially goes "I've seen Heaven and Hell, my arms have beaten gods and killed demons and banished ghosts, I have way the fuck more interesting shit to do than to sit around your castle and make anyone's babies, see you never, you asshole". Except she doesn't actually say that because she is a classy lady, but you know she's thinkin' it. She does start out as a bit of a wet noodle on account of her upbringing but she is faced with some crazy stuff and it does not break her.
-Torahime is a warrior-priestess who raises an army of giant undead samurai in order to assault the capital and depose the emperor, who has murdered her clan and stolen an evil sword. The male protagonist of the story assists her, but though he loves her dearly, he does so not because he thinks it'll earn her love, but because he hopes it'll earn her forgiveness.

You know what? If George Kamitani wants to make one game with a giant amazon who is so hella tough she doesn't even need armor (male warrior dude almost passes for some wuss in a tin can by comparison if you think about it for one half of one second), I say we let him. Guy's got some credit in the bank. And if someone starts going on about the designs being unrealistic, well they're gonna have to look for their realism in games that aren't about people with magic powers fighting dragons. (I don't know what DC is about but it seems like it fits that sort of bill.)

Now do I think the world needs more games without 9 foot tall half-naked women in it? Yeah of course that is quite clearly the case, I am not a dang moron (most of the time). But that goal ain't getting reached by making sure the world has less games with 9 foot tall half-naked women in it. It is accomplished by making sure the world has more games with women that have a reasonable amount of clothes on and the body of a possible human being. It is possible to compete against sex appeal and win, and if someone believes otherwise then they are part of the problem. If these games are made and they are any good then I reserve the right to buy the f out of them, and you can take that to the bank, ladies.

(Yes I do own Beyond Good & Evil and Mirror's Edge and Recettear and a bunch of Metroids and probably a lot more that I'm not thinking of because seriously I buy games because I think I'm gonna like them not because their main characters have dongs or no dongs.)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on May 03, 2013, 08:19:45 AM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/123768/Game%20pictures/sample-4cda6c87f80fd1f100d7ec82354b53d4.jpg)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Disposable Ninja on May 03, 2013, 08:24:34 AM
Meh. It's not the same.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: TA on May 03, 2013, 08:25:24 AM
Even when genderswapped, elf is still just elf.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on May 03, 2013, 08:34:33 AM
Elf is just so adorable.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on May 03, 2013, 09:03:45 AM
Where was everyone when Odin Sphere and Muramasa had good strong female characters and positive plot developments? Vanillaware's women have historically been pretty rad.

Strong female characters don't generate the pageviews that kotaku writers and their ilk can get by writing like whiny nerds desperate to impress women.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 03, 2013, 09:22:15 AM
I can't tell if it's a blog post or part of their regular news, but here is Kotaku praising Odin Sphere, and Gwendolyn in particular (http://kotaku.com/5879900/looking-for-a-video-game-that-is-a-literary-masterpiece-try-odin-sphere). And in another article, one of Kotaku's writers (and their ilk) praises Kamitani's art and female characters (http://kotaku.com/beyond-the-bosoms-this-art-is-some-of-the-best-in-the-480270975).

...writing like whiny nerds desperate to impress women.

Please stop posting.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 03, 2013, 09:54:53 AM
You know what? If George Kamitani wants to make one game with a giant amazon who is so hella tough she doesn't even need armor (male warrior dude almost passes for some wuss in a tin can by comparison if you think about it for one half of one second), I say we let him. Guy's got some credit in the bank. And if someone starts going on about the designs being unrealistic, well they're gonna have to look for their realism in games that aren't about people with magic powers fighting dragons. (I don't know what DC is about but it seems like it fits that sort of bill.)

They're archetypes. Heck, they're so extreme they're almost stereotypes. I like that they're all designed cartoonishly. It's like in Team Fortress 2, how each character was designed so that no two silhouettes were similar to one another. I think that Josh Whatsisname was pretty immature in his criticism of the designs, but then, rational discourse doesn't bring in the publicity.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on May 03, 2013, 10:12:49 AM
cartoon man - giant suit of armor
cartoon woman - tits + ass
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 03, 2013, 10:43:53 AM
[Vanillaware has unusually good female characters.]

You know what? If George Kamitani wants to make one game with a giant amazon who is so hella tough she doesn't even need armor (male warrior dude almost passes for some wuss in a tin can by comparison if you think about it for one half of one second), I say we let him.

Duder, did you just suggest that Kamitani has somehow "bought" the right to make games with pandering characters (with or without criticism from his fans)? It sounds like you did.

Really, this is an example of no good deed going unpunished. Vanillaware and Kamitani have fans specifically because of their track record of reasonably positive female characters. When someone points out that his character designs for Dragon's Crown are still hyper-sexualized, Vanillaware is chosen because of that track record. It highlights the breadth of these artistic tropes. Of course, it doesn't help that George decided to respond to criticism with the apparent assertion that his critic must be gay (http://kotaku.com/the-real-problem-with-that-controversial-sexy-video-ga-478120280).

Here's my problem with these materials, if there has to be one:
All of the female characters, no matter how "traditionally attractive" are in "brokeback (http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2012/02/21/she-has-no-head-no-its-not-equal/)" poses. It's tough for me to really get behind George's choice to make the Amazon's defining features be a gigantic, muscular body, supported by gigantic, muscular legs when he also feels the need to place her in a brokeback for the default character image on the site (http://www.atlus.com/dragonscrown/). To say nothing of whatever is going on in that image of the sorceress and the summoned skeleton.

I'll probably still play the game, but I'll be damned if I'm not going to at least "tsk tsk" every time someone uses a brokeback pose for a female character.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on May 03, 2013, 01:03:58 PM
Please stop posting.

You first.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on May 03, 2013, 01:27:04 PM
Kotaku, pretty much all of Gawker media, and even Polygon, which apparently is 90% kotaku writers, are sensationalist pieces of shit who's sole purpose is to drive pageviews. They are everything wrong with games journalism - and journalism on the whole - boiled down to it's core. When everyone else raised an eyebrow at the hyperexaggerated designs of everyone, Kotaku's opening volley was "THEY REALLY NEED TO STOP LETTING TEENAGE BOYS DESIGN THIS SHIT."

No, fuck you. You are a gigantic piece of shit, and you are a terrible writer, a terrible journalist, and a pathetic little human being. You are that kid in class, desperate to impress girls, so you blindly hate what they hate. You do this because it stokes the entire bullshit argument without ever actually trying to make progress, or god forbid, foster discussion beyond bile and hatred. You do nothing but perpetuate the idea that it's a "hot topic" that you can "never discuss." Of course you don't want it discussed, that's one less hot button issue for you to generate basic page views.

I see nothing wrong with Dragon's Crown. Full stop. Everyone in there is fantasy tropes turned up to 11, and I'm okay with that context. I don't believe George Katamari thinks all women are like that. It'd be foolish, given, well, the entire context. But that doesn't generate bullshit, does it? No, taking something out of context, screaming how awful and sexist it is does.

What if I fucking want to parade around like that? What if on the character select screen, that's exactly who I want to play? A woman so stoked with magical power she can dress however damn well she pleases and still incinerate everything around her? On a second note, what's wrong with flaunting it if you want to? I've played in many pen & paper games, and on more than one occasion I've played a female character who dressed like that, explicitly because she wanted to flaunt it. One was an assassin! There's a basic fantasy trope, dress to distract!

The problem comes when, in context, the woman is a tool, and nothing else. Here's an interview with a game developer (http://www.siliconera.com/2013/03/08/talking-about-time-and-eternity-blue-dragons-and-marriage/) where in the same breath, we have "The protagonist is a female because it's a marketing move" "It's not really a game for girls anyway" and "The reason we have the male assistant hero is because women drag men everywhere, am I right?" There's something to be fucking offended by. And the guy doesn't even imply it, he sits there and says it straight out.

But no, that takes thinking, that takes reading, that takes a lot more effort than posting a picture of boobs and screaming so hard your adams apple vibrates.

To elaborate on my post above: Constantine, please stop posting. Your type is absolutely fucking toxic to this discussion, because there is absolutely no hope of compromise, and no possible ideal that maybe, just maybe, the issue is deeper than "Men are pigs, women are victims." Women can be just as fucking awful about this issue as men can, they can be discriminatory towards men, they can capitalize on the issue for financial and personal gain, and they can blindly cling to the extremist side of the issue, ignoring any hope of meeting in the middle or actual compromise, because it's easier to assume 100% of one side is right than stop and think that maybe, just maybe, you're buying into some bullshit.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on May 03, 2013, 01:42:08 PM
hey, if they want traditional tropes tuned up to 11, I have a suggestion!

(http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/golliwog/more/gollxmas.jpg)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 03, 2013, 01:58:28 PM
Dragon's Crown looks really fun. I will play it.

The art style strikes me as Kamitani's take on western fantasy art. He is very talented.

The sorceress' tits are probably too big, but I don't actually care.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 03, 2013, 01:59:19 PM
Women can be just as fucking awful about this issue as men can, they can be discriminatory towards men,

and other women.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on May 03, 2013, 02:24:55 PM
Yes. I should have worded that to just straight up be "Hate is not gender-specific."
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on May 03, 2013, 02:47:17 PM
Meanwhile, Aisha Tyler lays a righteous smackdown (http://www.facebook.com/notes/aisha-tyler/dear-gamers/10151040991508993?_fb_noscript=1) on the "fake geek girl" crowd.

I am linking this because I think it will make her want to have sex with me.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 03, 2013, 05:47:50 PM
So this got pretty long and I am sorry for that. Some anger directed at some other people got diverted to Lyrai and I scold she and Constantine for being impatient with each other in this spat.

Kotaku Jason Schreier (http://jschreier.kinja.com/)'s opening volley was "THEY REALLY NEED TO STOP LETTING TEENAGE BOYS DESIGN THIS SHIT (http://kotaku.com/game-developers-really-need-to-stop-letting-teenage-boy-472724616)."

No, fuck you, [Jason Schreier]...
I'm not sure why the bile you should be directing to one writer is spilling over to all of Kotaku, but I don't have any real opinion of them.

I see nothing wrong with Dragon's Crown. Full stop. Everyone in there is fantasy tropes turned up to 11, and I'm okay with that context. I don't believe George Katamari thinks all women are like that.
And this is why Zara responded with the racist "Gollywog" Christmas card. A lot of fantasy tropes are frankly racist and sexist. The quality of Kamitani, Vallejo, Frazetta, whoever art doesn't change whatever problematic themes or tropes they play to. Further, Kamitani doesn't have to think "all women" are "like that" for something he draws or writes to be sexist. This nonsense kerfluffle (is it big enough to qualify for a shitstorm?) is a problem of what Kamitani did, not what he is, and as presumably rational participants in this discussion we should endeavor to keep it that way.

On a second note, what's wrong with flaunting it if you want to?...There's a basic fantasy trope, dress to distract!
But the sorceress, elf, and amazon are fictional characters, drawn by men to titillate other men. There's nothing wrong with a character (or a person) having it and wanting to flaunt it, but again...
The problem comes when, in context...
In this context, all three of the female characters in Dragon's Crown are drawn in brokeback poses. In an industry that's rife with these kinds of representations and the greater context of...
the woman is a tool, and nothing else. [WTF JAPANESE DEVELOPER GUY!?] There's something to be fucking offended by. And the guy doesn't even imply it, he sits there and says it straight out.
Being something that happens all across the industry.

But no, that takes thinking, that takes reading, that takes a lot more effort than posting a picture of boobs and screaming so hard your adams apple vibrates.
Now, this shouldn't be something that's offensive, or a problem here, but again, context:

To elaborate on my post above: Constantine, please stop posting. Your type is absolutely fucking toxic to this discussion,
You're writing an uncompromising, angry rant that is apparently targeted at Constantine for telling you to
...writing like whiny nerds desperate to impress women.
Please stop posting.
Which I grant, is shitty even if you're a step away from calling a huge portion of Kotaku's writers and readers (fake) white knights. But what is Constantine's "type"? I mean, the remainder of your complaints are eerily similar to what others have written to me as a criticism of feminism in general. They also complain that feminists reduce the discussion to, "Men are pigs, women are victims," (which is a straw man from detractors like Limbaugh) and that there is no hope of compromise with feminists (as though a group that's aiming for equality should compromise).

I get that you want Constantine to respect your opinion and not belittle or ignore it. I don't get this reaction you seem to have when problems of sexism and women's representations are brought up in games. When you start talking about Constantine's "type" when his comments (outside of "Please stop posting") throughout the thread are basically things I agree with, you're slandering me too and I am compelled to interject and defend my opinions from what seems to be a blanket rejection of them.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: François on May 04, 2013, 12:55:46 AM
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/123768/Game%20pictures/sample-4cda6c87f80fd1f100d7ec82354b53d4.jpg)

This image doesn't highlight the problem it thinks it's highlighting. The problem here is not that women are eroticized, the problem is that as a culture we don't have the visual language elements to eroticize men in the same way without it looking ridiculous. In fact, in many cases and especially in fantasy art, the two go-to ways to give a sexual dimension to a male character is to give him effeminate elements or to associate his sexuality with violence (i.e. giving him a phallic weapon, or implying that he is to any degree a rapist), and that is its own kind of problem. (I'm not saying a man with feminine attributes is in any way a problem though; the issue is that the typical toolkit to outline a man's sexuality in fantasy art is incredibly narrow and limited.) But that problem is not solved by reducing the toolkit in regards to females, it is solved by innovation in the toolkit for males. Heck, you know what? Innovation in the toolkit for females would actually be pretty cool too.

Now once that solution is established, I suppose one might be tempted to say that Kamitani has a duty to innovate there. But I would argue something else. People should create the art they want to create. Maybe the solution is having, say, more gay men and straight women* making games. I could get behind that 100%. More voices, more art. Sounds good to me, and I bet it also sounds good to you.

*: or more straight dudes and gay women who want to see eroticized men, or anyone anywhere on the gender spectrums, there's probably some out there, I ain't discriminatin'

[Vanillaware has unusually good female characters.]

You know what? If George Kamitani wants to make one game with a giant amazon who is so hella tough she doesn't even need armor (male warrior dude almost passes for some wuss in a tin can by comparison if you think about it for one half of one second), I say we let him.

Duder, did you just suggest that Kamitani has somehow "bought" the right to make games with pandering characters (with or without criticism from his fans)? It sounds like you did.

Yeah, I get how that's how that phrasing came across, and maybe the point was half-baked to begin with. Let's see if I can put it in a better way and get it cooked all the way through this time.

Okay, so, two elements. First, I suppose I was most reacting to the article I linked, which is essentially crude heckling that belittles the artist's skill on account of a dislike of the subject matter involved.

Second... The idea that Kamitani needs to buy the right to draw a nine foot tall half-naked woman, which I accidentally introduced so I'll own up to it, is dumb. It's dumb because eroticism is not a detriment, it's not something anyone needs to make excuses for. Are the arched back poses and giant boobs unrealistic? At face value, yes. That amazon is borderline monstrous if you take her on the first degree. But it is a depiction that seeks to evoke beauty. It actually leaves much to the imagination, as strange as that sounds given how little it hides. One cannot say it fails to replicate reality 1 for 1, because how can it fail at something that it does not attempt? (In fact, in a way I think I would find it easier to agree with anyone offended here if it did attempt to replicate reality.) And this evocation, this symbolization of beauty, I think it's successful. I think it's aesthetically pleasing, and probably not in the way you might guess. I'm 32 years old, I am not flopping my dick out and tugging it to Dragon's Crown concept art. I won't even buy the game, I don't have a PS3 or a Vita. But I understand that George Kamitani wants to make beautiful games, and that his idea of beauty sometimes involves impossibly detailed plate armor and blazing orange sunsets over rice paddies or a child sleeping in an armchair with a cat in her arms just like it sometimes involves a muscular woman's bare thighs or a dress slit all the way to the waist on a curvy redhead or a fearless priestess raising legions of the dead to do what the men of her clan could not.

And in that context... I agree, the world needs more games with muscular or powerful or otherwise able women who don't show off that much skin, or any skin, with more ways to engage a female audience. Yes, that much is clear, and I will support any quality efforts that push this cause forward. But if someone stands up and says that the world needs less games with tough-as-nails bikini-clad warrior women with giant axes drawn by artists of Kamitani's caliber, they can sit on a pineapple and go horse-riding. You don't get more X by trying to make sure less Y is getting made, you get more X by trying to make sure more X is getting made.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on May 04, 2013, 05:11:04 AM
So barbarians are usually half naked burly dudes, and we finally get a burly female barbarian and people complain about it, I just don't understand

Witht that out of the way, as fracois already pointed out, censoring people isn't the solution. Making really bland mass market products is the solution. I don't mean the current state of the industry, cause tht onlly mass market to half of the population. You really need to make way more blander to appeal to everone and not offefnd anyone. Take skyrim for example, your main character has absoutely no personality and like even if you're a dark elf or a khajiit and you're in a city that hates your kind they're still gonna give you quest and rewards like they woud anybody else. Now that's some dedicaation to equality

Though I suspect that people like anna antrhopy would take offense to the fact that you can only marry one person at a time.

So yeah, I'm going somewhere with this but I need to collect my thoughts before i get back to it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 05, 2013, 09:51:02 AM
I'm going to be lazy and just link google image searches rather than mirroring the images myself under the pretext of avoiding making a huge image bomb.

So barbarians are usually half naked burly dudes, and we finally get a burly female barbarian and people complain about it, I just don't understand
That's because you're not paying attention to the complaints that are being generated.

Let's look at Red Sonja (https://www.google.com/search?q=red+sonja&client=firefox&hs=F57&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bNGGUZKCNufzygGb3ICgBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=_). She isn't in her battle bikini to show off her musculature, the way that Conan the Barbarian (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=789&q=Conan+the+barbarian&oq=Conan+the+barbarian&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1086.3468.0.3692.19.8.0.9.9.0.135.739.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.6aZcP8c4qDU)'s battle speedo does. If she were, she'd look more like the Amazon, whose outfit I can believe was chosen specifically to show off her musculature and give the player the same kind of brawny wish-fulfillment that a heterosexual man gets out of seeing Arnold Conanning it up. I mean, check out this piece of character art (http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6044/5902981004_84fee86250_o.png). She looks strong and ready for battle even in repose (though it's maybe telling that I can't find any images of Conan in a similarly relaxed pose showing off his muscles). It's probably not a coincidence that she's using a halberd with an impossibly heavy axe head as her weapon, instead of a sword, or spear, or club, or any other traditionally more phallic weapon. I'm even willing to say that the point of the low angle of the "shot" is to highlight her legs and her weapon in a way similar to how low shots of Conan are meant to show how physically imposing he is (though there's probably also something to be said for how seldom Conan's legs are drawn attention to unless there is a woman draped about them (https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-wXzuiv6kv4M/TXBq3uAEUqI/AAAAAAAABnk/_vi625cie50/s1600/Conan-the-Barbarian.jpg)). In short, the Amazon is more like Conan in this image (http://images.darkhorse.com/darkhorse/downloads/desktops/conan30/conan30_med.jpg) than "the prize (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=789&q=conan+the+prize&oq=conan+the+prize&gs_l=img.3..0l2j0i24l3.758.2345.0.2462.15.9.0.5.5.0.149.760.6j3.9.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.j4LPJ7XgMu0)". Whose physical (and narrative) characteristics have more in common with Red Sonja (NSFW bondage comic cover (http://th09.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2013/011/8/d/red_sonja_by_rodel_martin_by_rodelsm21-d5r597r.jpg); mild brokeback pose (http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2rdkrqf&s=6)). As much as I want to applaud the design and these choices I still have misgivings because on the Dragon's Crown webpage, the Amazon is also put into a brokeback pose (http://sadpanda.us/images/1579861-MFITW97.jpg). It undermines all of the choices I want to applaud Kamitani for.

I can almost understand the idea that it's meant to be a glamor shot and that
The problem here is not that women are eroticized, the problem is that as a culture we don't have the visual language elements to eroticize men in the same way without it looking ridiculous (http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/11/27/what-if-the-male-avengers-posed-like-the-female-one/malke-avengers-do-brokeback-pose/).
But frankly this eroticizing shorthand is ridiculous on women too.

Of course, Patito, this kerfluffle was somebody making an idiot complaint about the Sorceress (and Kamitani's not-the-most-diplomatic response), not the Amazon. I just wanted to complain some more about how much brokeback poses annoy me.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 05, 2013, 11:12:32 AM
Let's look at Red Sonja (https://www.google.com/search?q=red+sonja&client=firefox&hs=F57&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bNGGUZKCNufzygGb3ICgBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=_). She isn't in her battle bikini to show off her musculature, the way that Conan the Barbarian (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=789&q=Conan+the+barbarian&oq=Conan+the+barbarian&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1086.3468.0.3692.19.8.0.9.9.0.135.739.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.6aZcP8c4qDU)'s battle speedo does.

Interestingly, Red Sonja's most popular appearance style is just the latest in her history (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wnHCRTQgHOQ/TtPd-CJBobI/AAAAAAAARHI/T2gT6TopXhg/s1600/3RedSonjas_100.jpg).
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 05, 2013, 11:39:49 AM
That is interesting!
I am not sure how it relates to this horse-hide drum that I'm beating, though...
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on May 05, 2013, 12:30:23 PM
I was bringing in the muscular amazon because i wanted to tie it up to kamitami's response with the muscular dudes and how they can also be found sexually attractive and that people are getting offended for really weird reasons. In fact they're probably getting offended just for the sake of being offended and that's no way to live.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 05, 2013, 02:02:05 PM
In fact they're probably getting offended just for the sake of being offended and that's no way to live.
When you're assuming someone is getting offended for the sake of being offended, you're being an asshole.
Especially if you're talking about Nutt being upset by Kamitani's joke (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristianNutt/20130423/191078/Dragons_Crown_George_Kamitani_and_being_stupid_on_Facebook.php). Maybe it's unfair to Kamitani to assume that he's the sort of person that uses "gay" as a pejorative, but again, context (http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/01/13/homophobia-and-harassment-in-the-online-gaming-age) and context (http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/29/bioware-david-gaider-sex-in-video-game/). While I'm 100% willing to give Kamitani the benefit of the doubt here, I'm basically not affected by homophobia. None of my current personal friends are ("out") gay men and being called gay as a pejorative hasn't bothered me since high school when I actively supported the LGBT tolerance group there. But I'm definitely not going to begrudge Nutt for being touchy about the subject. Just like I'm touchy when people try to use "feminist" or "atheist" as a pejorative.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 05, 2013, 02:29:50 PM
Kamitani's designs in this game, from the logo to the characters to the monsters, are so stylized as to be almost unrecognizable. The Amazon's "backbreaker pose" is the least anatomically disturbing thing about that image. Each character seems to have a feature that Kamitani has picked to make the focus of his design, and then he exaggerates it to the point of caricature. In the case of the Amazon it's her gigantic muscular physique, in particular her legs. For the warrior it seems to be his gear, as you can barely make out that he's even in there. The Dwarf seems to be similar to the amazon, but flipped, in that he to is a brick shithouse, but top heavy instead. And then obviously the Sorceress has enormous breasts, but she also seems to be wearing an evening gown, and she acts rather haughty, so I can see where he's going with that too. I'm not sure what the Elf is really showing off, maybe just speed and agility with her small frame.

The point being, the entire cast are impossible freaks.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 05, 2013, 03:03:58 PM
...Except the women(with the exception of Elf) are impossibly sexualized freaks. We've been over this already.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 05, 2013, 03:10:37 PM
I would argue that that claim only really applies to the Sorceress. Honestly, even she is so over the top I find it hard to take seriously.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 05, 2013, 03:13:22 PM
Nah, that Amazon is definitely somebody's fetish.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on May 05, 2013, 03:15:38 PM
Look, I like the elf and the amazon is pretty gross when drawn really closely to her actual design. Could the wizard stand to be a prettier pretty boy, I suppose he could. The dwarf if pretty dwarvy if you're into that.

What I'm saying is that most of the cast can be somebody's fetish and you don't even need to oversexualize them.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 05, 2013, 03:19:00 PM
Nah, that Amazon is definitely somebody's fetish.

I don't think anything is going to be served by getting in to what is and is not someone's fetish. I know for a fact that every single character, male or female, is someone's specific fetish.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 05, 2013, 03:31:18 PM
Look, I like the elf and the amazon is pretty gross when drawn really closely to her actual design. Could the wizard stand to be a prettier pretty boy, I suppose he could. The dwarf if pretty dwarvy if you're into that.

What I'm saying is that most of the cast can be somebody's fetish and you don't even need to oversexualize them.

And yet: (http://i.imgur.com/ZpowlMk.gif)

Anyway, I tend to agree with Kayin (http://kayin.pyoko.org/?p=2392) on this. Dragon's Crown is a niche of a niche, and the overall impact it's going to have on anything is pretty small. That doesn't mean it can't be discussed, or even criticized, but at the end of the day, George Kamitani is going to make games for George Kamitani. And that's okay, because not everything has to appeal to everyone! The games industry definitely needs more representation from women and minorities, but I kind of feel like that's a whole other issue, and the casual sexism/racism we see in mainstream games are more of a symptom of that than anything else.

Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 05, 2013, 04:12:17 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/ZpowlMk.gif)

Anybody remember Naga from Slayers? She was a caricature of busty fantasy sorceresses too.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on May 05, 2013, 04:26:47 PM
Let's look at Red Sonja (https://www.google.com/search?q=red+sonja&client=firefox&hs=F57&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bNGGUZKCNufzygGb3ICgBQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1440&bih=789#imgrc=_). She isn't in her battle bikini to show off her musculature, the way that Conan the Barbarian (https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=789&q=Conan+the+barbarian&oq=Conan+the+barbarian&gs_l=img.3..0l10.1086.3468.0.3692.19.8.0.9.9.0.135.739.5j3.8.0...0.0...1ac.1.12.img.6aZcP8c4qDU)'s battle speedo does.

Interestingly, Red Sonja's most popular appearance style is just the latest in her history (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wnHCRTQgHOQ/TtPd-CJBobI/AAAAAAAARHI/T2gT6TopXhg/s1600/3RedSonjas_100.jpg).

Kinda but not really.

As that image alludes, there is a character named Red Sonya who appears in a Howard story from 1934.

Red Sonja is a derivative but distinct character created by Roy Thomas and Barry Windsor Smith, and first appeared in 1973.  That 1972 drawing is consistent with her first couple of appearances, but she was wearing the chainmail bikini within a matter of months, not years.  So far as I know her appearance has been pretty consistent since.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 05, 2013, 04:49:40 PM
I was slow on the draw for this one...

The point being, the entire cast are impossible freaks.
You're not wrong with what you're saying but...
We've been over this already.
I'd argue that the Elf is also sexualized in that she's also put into a brokeback pose (http://static.giantbomb.com/uploads/original/1/10460/2458078-dragon%27s+crown+elf.png), though it's an "action shot" and maybe doesn't count this negates, somewhat the creepy male gaze factor I get from it. Obviously a pose being used in an "action shot" does not preclude the image being completely ridiculous (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GtJDjt6ryTQ/T2NktWzqLjI/AAAAAAAABqE/lvaSKe8E-m0/s1600/tumblr_ly0hnsLYZz1r0rg1zo1_500.jpg). Examining the elf's design though, the points we're meant to find attractive might actually be her almost conservative style of dress and her agility and flexibility (http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22700000/Dragon-s-Crown-dragons-crown-22778778-720-800.jpg). EDIT: And I assume everyone here understands how these are desirable features.

If it's not yet clear, I use whether or not characters are put into the brokeback pose as something of a "Bechdel Test" for just how much the piece is trying to hook me in by my genitals. I'm pretty sure that while there going to be concerns (http://realgamernewz.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Dragons-Crown.jpg) that can legitimately be raised about the characters and story of Dragon's Crown, at least none of the women are going into combat wearing heels like M:OM Samus (http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100808054410/metroid/images/1/17/Zerosuitothermrender.jpg) or Samara (http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2011/331/e/4/mass_effect_2__samara___model_reference__by_troodon80-d4hhqi1.jpg), and it's not like Kamitani hasn't also put the fighter into a slight brokeback (http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2t3ikOL3k1rnlu31.jpg) (the plane of his hips and feet are at more than a right angle from the plane of his shoulders and chest). Like the Bechdel Test, it's an extremely low bar that says very little for the (sleazy) content of whatever it is that's being tested, but it usually means that a (usually female) character is being treated as eye candy and the frequency of it makes me uncomfortable.

amazon is pretty gross when drawn really closely to her actual design
I am extremely disappointed by this opinion.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 05, 2013, 06:12:11 PM
As I was saying before, regardless of how you take the imagery, I think we can agree that anatomical accuracy is the least of Kamitani's concerns. Even the "broke back pose" on the Amazon seems more like she's just made out of elastic in general.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 05, 2013, 06:57:50 PM
I agree, at least to some degree, on all of those points.
Of course, deviation from "anatomical accuracy" is not why "broke back poses" are problematic in general or why I'm annoyed at placing the Amazon in them in particular. Those being that making the Amazon seem to be made of elastic runs counter to the more interesting characterization of her being made of muscle and martial prowess and the use of a "broke back pose" offers no additional insight to the personality of a character beyond "is eye candy" by placing the character in a pose crafted specifically to cater to a/the "male gaze".

Actually, don't Dragon's Crown's player characters have heads are closer to the "proper" proportion of head to body (the head represents approximately 1/8th of your overall height)?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on May 06, 2013, 06:22:00 AM
My point is mostly, and I've said this in like the last two post, and ted seems to have missed the point. You don't need to oversexualise everybody to make them sexually attractive. The sorceress in particular fills the fetish of big boobs and oversexualization and probably some other ones. The amazon is for people who like muscles, the elf appeals to me, the dwarf appeals to other people even. So everybody is a fetish object. Singling out the sorceress is pretty silly when every other character is designed to appeal to one fetish or another.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 06, 2013, 06:49:41 AM
Oh no, I didnt miss your point. I just disregarded it, because, like Kayin said, if you're trying to argue that the depictions of the sorceress and the fighter are at all equivalent, you're probably an asshole.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on May 06, 2013, 06:30:30 PM
Well no, the fighter is pretty boring, I don't know who would play him.
Title: IT BEGINS (again)
Post by: Büge on May 28, 2013, 10:28:08 AM
Damsel in Distress: Part 2 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs#ws)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Disposable Ninja on May 28, 2013, 10:46:43 AM
Well no, the fighter is pretty boring, I don't know who would play him.

Dragon's Crown, most boring to most awesome: Sorcerer, Fighter, Sorceress, Elf, Amazon, Dwarf
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 28, 2013, 11:44:46 AM
Damsel in Distress: Part 2 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs#ws)

Because nobody reads the last post on the previous page.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 28, 2013, 02:49:25 PM
Damsel in Distress got stretched to 3 parts.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 28, 2013, 03:07:25 PM
My favorite kind of damsel in distress!
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 28, 2013, 03:10:26 PM
Niku, get out of Brentai's account.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on May 29, 2013, 02:13:04 AM
I made it almost four minutes in before rolling my eyes. I think that's an improvement on her work.

Now if she can just manage to release a single video without being a damsel at the hands of these terrible internet trolls (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/28/feminist-analysis-of-video-game-tropes-booted-off-youtube-within-hours/) we'll have some real progress.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on May 29, 2013, 03:53:43 AM
On the one hand, I never agree with everything she says and every point she makes in her videos, on the other, the sheer reaction she gets from all the little boys who think it's perfectly fine to stuff a woman in a fridge because IT'S FANTASY DOODZ only proves that the problem she is talking about exists (AT FULL FORCE) and has long, long, long, looooooooong(cat is long) gone fully systemic.

Her errors/specific points I disagree with her on are basically irrelevant. You wanna tear her ass down because she makes demonstrable errors in her analysis? Go for it. But if you're waiting for a chick who perfectly researches everything and never makes any mistakes of any kind while talking about such a hot atomic center of a million suns FALCON. PAAAAAAAUNCH!!! button topic, you're going to be waiting a long time.

Unless you are on the other side of the fence and think sexism is over. In which case she's a paranoid femnazi who clearly slap in the face obviously clearly some argue clearly.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 29, 2013, 04:13:21 AM
I made it almost four minutes in before rolling my eyes. I think that's an improvement on her work.

Now if she can just manage to release a single video without being a damsel at the hands of these terrible internet trolls (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/28/feminist-analysis-of-video-game-tropes-booted-off-youtube-within-hours/) we'll have some real progress.

Er, how is it her fault that a bunch of angry nerds flagged her video?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 29, 2013, 04:43:43 AM
Most people seem to overlook that she says, from the outset, that it's okay to enjoy these things. Hell, in this one, she practically goes out of her way to say that the people who make these games and the people who enjoy them or not bad people, even going so far as to state in no uncertain terms that she does not think these games make monsters, but that it's important and rewarding to take a critical eye to the media we consume. There is no mistake about it, she thinks video games are A-OK, but that doesn't excuse a lot of the regressive plot elements that are put into games without thought on the part of the creators. The fictional Anita who is super angry, wants to ban all the games and thinks men are all rapist exist only in the heads of people who can't get past the initial feminist critique.

While the outright hostility and harassment of Anita is real (and not just her acting like a damsel, as some misogynistic dickbags on these very forums would claim (http://brontoforum.us/index.php?topic=6676.msg258033#msg258033)), it's not nearly as problematic as the people who might concede that yes, women's portrayal in games might be lacking, but then do everything they can to try and silence any deeper debate. This usually makes presents itself as people trying to critique external or minute details about the videos, rather than have any meaningful discussion about her main point. Trying to nitpick minor details of interpretation of game plots, long treatise about her interpretation of the roles of characters that she spent less than half a minute addressing in the video, or complaints that because she doesn't allow comments that she is somehow silencing the debate.

Whether you agree with her 100% or not, that does not change the fact that she has seen something in gaming - but not endemic to all of gaming - that is problematic, and is determining to talk about it. You can either take a dismissive, arrogant tone and assume that she is just wrong wrong wrong, or you can understand that she, and women and men like her, really feels strongly about this.

Also, she dared say anything critical about Ico, so I expect gamers to be UP IN ARMS to try and take her down on that 30 seconds of commentary.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on May 29, 2013, 04:54:22 AM
Er, how is it her fault that a bunch of angry nerds flagged her video?

It's not. At all. That's the point.

'People on youtube are shitty and dumb' isn't much of a news story. Most people deal with it instead of disabling rating and comments, or posting to twitter about how their personal harassers are the ones doing it as if it is just them.

It wouldn't be worth mentioning if not for the fact that she's doing a series of videos where she regularly states that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 29, 2013, 05:02:03 AM
I fail to see how disabling YouTube comments isn't "dealing with it".

Also, are you deliberately missing the point of her videos, or just accidentally?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 29, 2013, 05:05:04 AM
At this point, Beat Bandit's self-professed tolerance of hateful, ignorant comments is a pretty big example of why he should either A) Not be allowed to post in this thread or B) Be outright banned. We don't need such toxicity.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ocksi on May 29, 2013, 06:13:55 AM
I just don't understand why games constantly try to take away my MEN'S RIGHT to having a meaningful relationship and constantly fridges woman
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on May 29, 2013, 06:20:18 AM
If being in a fridge was good enough for Indiana Jones, I don't know why they aren't good enough for anyone else.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 29, 2013, 07:08:20 AM
It wouldn't be worth mentioning if not for the fact that she's doing a series of videos where she regularly states that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.
Sarkeesian refuses the idea that a woman being in distress overrides any positive traits at about 14:45, and at about 12:45, and implicitly in the opening when she suggests that enjoying media does not preclude criticizing its problematic elements (nor does Sarkeesian suggest it should be retired in the video, though she does complain about its ubiquity).
She also reiterates this at timestamp 1:33 in part 2, and again at 3:11, about the time when you claimed you "rolled your eyes".
Well, to be fair, you claimed you rolled your eyes at about 4 minutes, where Sarkeesian tries to explain why Marion's shadowboss impalement doesn't change her objections to the trope.

So...
You're rolling your eyes because you're willfully misunderstanding her position?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 29, 2013, 07:10:52 AM
At this point, Beat Bandit's self-professed tolerance of hateful, ignorant comments is a pretty big example of why he should either A) Not be allowed to post in this thread or B) Be outright banned. We don't need such toxicity.

No.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on May 29, 2013, 07:13:17 AM
So, we're going to do this with every new video.

How many episodes are we getting again? ::(:
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on May 29, 2013, 07:40:00 AM
She also reiterates this at timestamp 1:33
No... she doesn't. I don't know what to say here, all she does is define a damsel in distress.

in part 2, and again at 3:11, about the time when you claimed you "rolled your eyes".
About the time when she explains how damsels can have other character traits but it just "adds to the disappointment" or can choose to "be sassy", coming in at four minutes when she explains how even if the damsel has a useful trait or provides something at the end it doesn't count because it's just something on the side.

I would consider that a good reason to roll my eyes. Too bad I actually meant closer to the two minute mark when she shows off the cover of Beyond Good & Evil in the middle of talking about one of the rare current games that doesn't follow the trope.

(note: BG&E is a non-stop rule 63 damsel in distress story. First children, then a friendly agent, and finally your uncle for the majority of the story)

So we can agree to one thing at least: she contradicts herself enough that you can argue almost any point from what she says.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 29, 2013, 08:15:41 AM
She also reiterates this at timestamp 1:33
No... she doesn't. I don't know what to say here, all she does is define a damsel in distress.
As a plot device, and not:
that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.

in part 2, and again at 3:11, about the time when you claimed you "rolled your eyes".
About the time when she explains how damsels can have other character traits but it just "adds to the disappointment" or can choose to "be sassy", coming in at four minutes when she explains how even if the damsel has a useful trait or provides something at the end it doesn't count because it's just something on the side.
Because she's repeatedly explaining to the audience that the trope is still being used even if the character is a "helpful damsel" or a "feisty damsel". She's also saying that she's disappointed when fun, competent characters get "damselled" because as she keeps saying: the Damsel in Distress trope trades one character's competence and agency for the sake of another character's arc.

I would consider that a good reason to roll my eyes. Too bad I actually meant closer to the two minute mark
Then why did you close-to-double the length of time you watched patiently?

when she shows off the cover of Beyond Good & Evil in the middle of talking about one of the rare current games that doesn't follow the trope.

(note: BG&E is a non-stop rule 63 damsel in distress story. First children, then a friendly agent, and finally your uncle for the majority of the story)
You just tried to draw an equivalence between Damsels in Distress and Dudes in Distress. But let's pretend that there weren't mountains more examples of Damsel in Distress than Dudes in Distress and pretend that this wasn't a huge point of the entire video series.
It's still neat because it highlights what makes Distressed Dude (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DistressedDude) (do note that TVTropes uses a broader definition of DiD than Sarkeesian, oh, and that's a TVTropes link) different from Damsels in most cases. Foremost is that none of those characters being rescued are either biologically related to or romantic interests for Jade.

So we can agree to one thing at least: she contradicts herself enough that you can argue almost any point from what she says.
She doesn't contradict herself (in these videos). You're manufacturing these "contradictions" from nothing.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 29, 2013, 08:16:48 AM
So, we're going to do this with every new video.

How many episodes are we getting again? ::(:

I am OK with this because it is important to me that I understand the concerns of people who disagree with me.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on May 29, 2013, 08:32:21 AM
As a plot device
that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.
So because when explaining what a damsel is without going further into her personal views means when she does later they don't count? Got it.

because as she keeps saying: the Damsel in Distress trope trades one character's competence and agency for the sake of another character's arc.
Sarkeesian refuses the idea that a woman being in distress overrides any positive traits at about 14:45, and at about 12:45
So it doesn't override it, it just gets rid of it for something else. Oh right, totally, it all makes sense now.

You just tried to draw an equivalence between Damsels in Distress and Dudes in Distress. But let's pretend that there weren't mountains more examples of Damsel in Distress than Dudes in Distress and pretend that this wasn't a huge point of the entire video series.
As a plot device
And this plot device is a boring and overused one that we should get away from... unless you genderswap in which case it's original. Got it.

Foremost is that none of those characters being rescued are either biologically related to or romantic interests for Jade.
Your family is not special.

She doesn't contradict herself (in these videos). You're manufacturing these "contradictions" from nothing.
Hell, I don't need to when you do for me.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 29, 2013, 09:11:25 AM
You're going to make me look very gullible, aren't you?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on May 29, 2013, 09:50:00 AM
Just confine the whole fucking mess to Guild Hall. It can't get any more fucking stupid in there.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on May 29, 2013, 09:50:35 AM
Note that I am calling this entire discussion stupid, in the sense that seeing a bunch of men flail around and try to discuss women's issues, and both sides do it poorly enough to be embarassing, is stupid.

I am not calling individual people stupid.

I clarify this, because I believe this discussion is, in fact, so stupid, someone would think I'm insulting them directly.

In which case, I will call you stupid.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 29, 2013, 10:08:41 AM
Not that I disagree, but we're gonna need something more than "stupid".
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 29, 2013, 10:13:53 AM
Beat, you're being a shit. I am going to try really hard to respond without being a shit in kind, but I am not making any promises.

As a plot device
that all positive character traits are moot once a person is victimized.
So because when explaining what a damsel is without going further into her personal views means when she does later they don't count? Got it.
Wrong. Because she contradicts your characterization of her argument at about 3:11 in part 2, which I've told you before:
She also reiterates this at timestamp 1:33 in part 2, and again at 3:11,
which is a reiteration of things she said in part 1:
Sarkeesian refuses the idea that a woman being in distress overrides any positive traits at about 14:45, and at about 12:45


because as she keeps saying: the Damsel in Distress trope trades one character's competence and agency for the sake of another character's arc.
Sarkeesian refuses the idea that a woman being in distress overrides any positive traits at about 14:45, and at about 12:45
So it doesn't override it, it just gets rid of it for something else. Oh right, totally, it all makes sense now.

You don't seem to understand the language that's being used here. "Agency" refers to a character's ability for their decisions to meaningfully impact the plot. Sarkeesian's definition of being DiD'd requires that the character not effect their own rescue, requiring another character to do it. When the narrative focuses on the rescue of the DiD'd character by the actions of another character, yes, the DiD is having their agency sacrificed (possibly temporarily) for the sake of another character's story arc. Positive traits associated with agency are diminished directly (here "traded" does not mean replaced, because these traits are matters of degree and something I don't think either of us want to force a crude binary upon. i.e. a character is not competent or incompetent, but has competency somewhere along a continuum of ability, or as something described relative to other characters in the story) and positive traits not associated with agency have less opportunity to be explored or be relevant when the narrative is spending the bulk of its time on the journey of an external rescuer character and not the DiD themselves.

e.g. Super Joe, however awesome he might be, is evidently less awesome than Radd/Rad/Ladd Spencer, who manages to effect Super Joe's rescue and complete Joe's mission. This example chosen specifically for having the gender politics portion of the problem removed.

You just tried to draw an equivalence between Damsels in Distress and Dudes in Distress. But let's pretend that there weren't mountains more examples of Damsel in Distress than Dudes in Distress and pretend that this wasn't a huge point of the entire video series.
As a plot device
And this plot device is a boring and overused one that we should get away from... unless you genderswap in which case it's original. Got it.
Sarkeesian is not complaining that it is boring. She's complaining that DiD reinforces regressive gender stereotypes.

Foremost is that none of those characters being rescued are either biologically related to or romantic interests for Jade.
Your family is not special.
I have no idea why you're quoting Friday at me as though her assertions change the content of what's being brought up, nor do I think "romantic interests" intersect with "family" for the purposes of this discussion.

She doesn't contradict herself (in these videos). You're manufacturing these "contradictions" from nothing.
Hell, I don't need to when you do for me.
Beats, everything you've complained about has been you either completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to tell you or completely misunderstanding the positions laid out in the two Tropes Vs. Women in Videogames videos that have been made so far. Your "contradictions" are your own preconceptions and obstinate ignorance refusing to yield to someone trying to inform you.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 29, 2013, 10:19:21 AM
Quote from: Warg
Cymbal Head on NeoGAF actually wrote a helpful post (http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=49450068&postcount=3115) to cover common objections to these Tropes vs. Women videos.

Quote
Objection: The video doesn't do enough to explain why the trope is harmful.

It’s out of the scope of this video to give a complete account and justification of feminist theory. It presupposes the principles of feminism, then deconstructs video games from that perspective. Perhaps she should have made a “Feminism 101” introductory video before starting the series proper, but there are plenty of other places to learn about such things.

Objection: She just points out a problem without offering solutions.

For many viewers who have never thought much about sexism in games, simply pointing out the problem may be a necessary first step. There’s an infinite number of conceivable ways to avoid using the trope, and she has no duty to enumerate them.

Objection: Too much of the video consists of a string of examples without analysis. Related objection: She shouldn’t criticize remakes for staying true to their source material.

Part of the argument (and indeed of feminist criticism in general) is that disempowering tropes accrete their influence via ubiquity. Giving a lot of examples serves to establish the ubiquity of the damsel in distress trope in video games. Remakes of games using the trope establish this as well. Yes, she could deconstruct each example individually, but that would make the video impractically long, and she’d be repeating herself for most of it.

Objection: Most games don’t employ this trope out of a deliberate sexism, it’s just lazy writing.

This is likely true. Now, perhaps it is worth examining why “save the helpless woman” is what people reach for when they want a lazy scenario, and why that might indicate (and perpetuate) harmful attitudes about women in society.

Objection: This youtube video is not a scholarly thesis.

You are correct, and it was never claimed as such, so your objection doesn't do anything useful for the conversation.

Objection: Disabling the comments on youtube is evidence that she isn’t interested in having a legitimate dialogue.

Disabling the comments on youtube is evidence that she doesn’t want to be harassed. And despite the comments being off, there seems to be quite a bit of discussion going on elsewhere. For example, on GAF.

Objection: The claim that sexism in video games leads to sexism in real life is analogous to the claim that violence in video games leads to violence in real life.

This misrepresents the nature of feminist criticism. It’s not a direct 1:1 causal relationship that is being argued, but the insidious and pernicious influence that popular culture has on people’s attitudes. A better analogy would be that violent video games create and perpetuate a society that is more tolerant of violence (say, as a solution to geopolitical problems).

Objection: These examples are taken mostly from decades-old games.

She promised a treatment of more recent games in the next episode. Let’s wait for it to come out before objecting on these grounds.

Objection: The video doesn't consider any games that subvert, break, or intentionally employ the trope as commentary.

She promised to do this in the next video. Let’s wait for it to come out before criticizing her on those grounds.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on May 29, 2013, 11:52:11 AM
Not that I disagree, but we're gonna need something more than "stupid".

We've already hit name calling and passive aggressive insulting in record time, and going by the track record of the last discussion, no one's opinion is changing on anything. At the end of the day, nothing will happen, no one's opinions will change, and Anita Sarkeesan will still have awful fashion sense.

Smother the entire thing in it's crib and wait a year or two for the 8th or 9th video to see if we've matured enough, or ran out the shitty parts of the discussion to have a decent discussion on it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on May 29, 2013, 12:21:15 PM
Speaking of tropes, I've come to realize over the years that if someone on the Internet responds to a comment with a sentence beginning with "So" or ending in "Got it", there is close to 100% probability that sentence is a strawman.

So
Got it.
So
Got it.
Oh right, totally, it all makes sense now.

Got it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on May 29, 2013, 12:44:48 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/jvc905p.gif)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Disposable Ninja on May 29, 2013, 12:49:13 PM
If being in a fridge was good enough for Indiana Jones, I don't know why they aren't good enough for anyone else.

Hell, the best way to keep the girl from dying in Heavy Rain was to stuff her ass in the fridge.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 29, 2013, 01:37:36 PM
So here's my concern.  If I am developing a game in which one of the major plot points involves the male main character attempting to rescue a female heroine from capture, how should I react to this discussion?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 29, 2013, 01:40:56 PM
I disagree with her mostly with regards to some of the examples she chooses and her apparent inability to keep certain facts straight (neither of which invalidate her broader point, obviously), but I am still wondering where that 150k went. Because it's not video quality, quantity, or fact checking.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 29, 2013, 01:56:38 PM
So here's my concern.  If I am developing a game in which one of the major plot points involves the male main character attempting to rescue a female heroine from capture, how should I react to this discussion?

I'd ask myself "is it absolutely necessary that I use this plot device?"
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on May 29, 2013, 02:18:09 PM
So here's my concern.  If I am developing a game in which one of the major plot points involves the male main character attempting to rescue a female heroine from capture, how should I react to this discussion?
Do your best to be aware of the implications of that decision, giving due consideration in particular to the ones you don't intend. (Some sensitivity to logically invalid implications that are likely to be incorrectly perceived nevertheless would also be prudent.) Alter them creatively until you're comfortable releasing a product which makes or implicitly supports those assertions.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 29, 2013, 02:30:10 PM
So here's my concern.  If I am developing a game in which one of the major plot points involves the male main character attempting to rescue a female heroine from capture, how should I react to this discussion?

This whole question becomes quite a conundrum. If you're cognizant of your story and the creative process enough to be aware of this plot point and its meanings, then it seems unlikely that you wouldn't be sophisticated and intelligent enough to do something else.

If you're intelligent and self-aware enough to realize this plot point is a problem, then you'd probably be creative enough to either ditch it, flip it or find something intelligent to say with it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 29, 2013, 03:06:42 PM
Thinking that way.  My new problem is that I see a way to just sidestep the whole scenario, but I don't want to do it because I don't want to capitulate to what feels like browbeating.  That's my actual instinct, I'm not just trying to start up a new fight.

I'm not altogether sure I would have done it if I had thought of it before, either, because at the end of the day I like damsel in distress scenarios.  It's a guilty pleasure, like, well, killing things in video games, and a bunch of other shit people really shouldn't be encouraging.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 29, 2013, 03:08:05 PM
I disagree with her mostly with regards to some of the examples she chooses and her apparent inability to keep certain facts straight (neither of which invalidate her broader point, obviously), but I am still wondering where that 150k went. Because it's not video quality, quantity, or fact checking.

I hear the "Where did the money go" complaint a lot and it seems rather petty. Mostly because she asked for $6,000, got way more because the trolls brought attention to her, and did you actually back it? Let's be realistic, she asked for a fairly modest sum for what was originally 5 videos probably at her regular Feminist Frequency length, around 7 minutes. Unless you personally gave her $150k to make these videos, it's kind of low to keep bitching about it. With that said, let's do (highly assuming) maths!

First off, her original proposal on the Kickstarter called for 12 videos, the first of which would be the only one dealing with Damsels in Distress. It's now obvious that this subject actually covers three videos, which would push the numbers of videos up to 15. The first video took 9 months to get here. The second video took 2 months. If we assume the two months is closer to the schedule, that means the video series will take an additional 28 months to complete. So, 9 + 28 = 37 months, or about 3 years. So roughly $50k a year. Which would seem great if she just lived off that, wouldn't it?

Now, let's try breaking it down per video. If we accept the 15 video conceit, then that's about $10k per video. The two videos released average at about 24 minutes per video. And that's just the edited video. Who knows how many hours of work go into the pre-production of making a video. Plus, she's paying for a producer, who I would guess is the guy filming, lighting and editing, so every hour of work this guy gets paid. And if he's a decent producer, he's not doing it for cheap. Add to that the cost she's sending out for video effects by a video production company called Black Math. She could easily be spending a lot on just those two production values alone.

And all of that is before you get into her creating classroom curriculum, filling out Kickstarter rewards, money spent towards lights, a camera and all the game consoles and games necessary to actually study the medium. Making videos ain't cheap. Especially when they start breaking the 20 minute mark. There's a lot of popular video blogs on YouTube that average at about 10 minutes, and they can't be the quality they are without a team of people and sponsorships. Keep in mind, I have no direct info, and can only estimate based upon the information available on her Kickstarer page, but it seems unlikely that she's just wasting the money on blow or whatever and instead has probably put it towards making this video series for the next 2 years of her life.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 29, 2013, 04:02:08 PM
I don't think she's wasting the money, I just think she doesn't know how to use it effectively. It's very likely more than she's ever had at one time, and spending money well is harder than it sounds. However, person sitting with picture in picture is something that can be done live with a webcam and a twitch channel. Spring for a 15 dollar xsplit license and you can stream game footage easily too. When I say "where did the money go" I mean "this isn't quality video, there's no fact checking, it looks basically the same as before, what the fuck?".

I can't see how you're getting to 10k per video, given the videos we've been getting, and the interval between videos leaves little room for excuses with regards to the simple (and ultimately unimportant to the broader message) mistakes she makes. The problem is, those mistakes make everyone who does know what she fucked up think "Where does she get off telling me what's wrong with my favorite videos game when she clearly doesn't know shit about them?". This makes it hard for her argument to be taken seriously by anyone who was not already in agreement, which is fucking pointless. You don't need to spend 150k, or 6k for that matter, on people who are already sold.

So I am left pondering. Either do something really impressive and airtight with that extra $144k, or give the remainder to an aligned charity or something.

Also, just to make it clear, I didn't back her, because I thought she was kind of an unfocused hack to be honest, so I don't feel like MY money is being misused, I just think the money could be much better used, and it's not right now.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on May 29, 2013, 04:10:53 PM
Also, don't forget taxes and Kickstarter/Amazon's cut.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 29, 2013, 04:37:58 PM
I just watched the rest of the latest episode, and I'll admit the production values (edits, wipes, etc.) are better than before. Though once the effect is made, anything can be plugged in.

With regards to her points in the video, one struck me as particularly annoying. She pauses at one point to admit that many of these games contextualize the violence she's talking about, but that ultimately doesn't matter because violence against women is bad (reinforcing negative social norms RE: Women, etc.). Later, she says it's okay for women to die in stories, because taking that out completely would be ridiculous. Soooo... which is it? I wouldn't bother defended almost any of the games she showed (mostly because they're shit regardless), but claiming that context doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of things and then saying later that, well, of course women die too so women in fiction can die seems contradictory to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on May 29, 2013, 04:45:43 PM
I liked where brentai was taking this conversation, the economics of the video not so much.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 29, 2013, 04:55:02 PM
Well, at least as far as these videos are concerned, the economics are more interesting than the content for the most part.

As for Brentai's supposition, I agree that I would feel uncomfortable changing my story just because it's not a popular, or socially sensitive way to go about things. Maybe I have a great idea for my Damsel, and she'll be really interesting, or maybe I just want to make a game and saving the princess is a pretty classic way to get people from point A to point B, because that's all I really want them to do. It doesn't matter. Changing what I want to be in my game because other people have a problem with it that isn't related to the game specifically would bother me. Maybe I just don't like being told what to do, even if the person doing the telling is a kind of vague social pressure.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 29, 2013, 10:49:44 PM
It's a guilty pleasure, like, well, killing things in video games, and a bunch of other shit people really shouldn't be encouraging.
I'm disappointed Brent. Own up to how it's a "guilty pleasure" in the first place instead of trying to justify sticking to it because you felt guilty when someone pointed out that Damsels in Distress are ubiquitous and reinforce problematic shit through that ubiquity (which is what I assume your describing her videos as a "brow beating" means). You're not an emotionally stunted person who needs to lie to themselves about their motivations to sleep at night.

Of course, begging the question of why it feels like a brow beating makes me wonder why do we like Damsels in Distress anyway?
What about it actually appeals to us and how much has it been reinforced by ubiquitous examples and conditioning?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on May 29, 2013, 11:17:48 PM
There's nothing wrong with fiction about a rescue - either its existence or the enjoyment thereof. Nor is there anything wrong with creating a character who exists solely to be rescued - not every character needs depth or agency. Especially in a minimalist work, there's nothing inherently problematic about writing a character to be nothing more than an accessory to another one. That sort of heroism can form the basis of a compelling fantasy.

In a vacuum there's nothing wrong with this plot device, but no media is created or released in a vacuum. The problem is not in the individual works, but in the cultural milieu where it's become an omnipresent cliché for a male character to derive their entire motivation from something that happened to a female macguffin. Objectification of this sort is accepted as sort of a default basis for any story, with (it is assumed) deleterious consequences on society at large.

Stock story elements, unchallenged, serve to assert the normalcy of a certain social order. If there's a certain aspect of medieval society that you'd rather not see in modern times, then it would behoove you to avoid unthinkingly imitating plot devices which were used to uphold that part of medieval society.

The key word here is unthinkingly. A good writer should understand the rudiments of criticism well enough to perceive the effects of any change they make on their story, so that you can tell the story you want to tell without accidentally saying something you don't want to say. Blindly copying a cliché will blindly perpetuate the prevailing worldview (I don't want to say "prejudices" as this might imply that any commonly held opinion is necessarily wrong) that gave rise to it - whether or not you agree with it. I should point out that tropes, in the contemporary internet sense of the term, do not constitute a rudimentary understanding of criticism; categorization according to them obliterates the very nuance that criticism is supposed to reveal.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 30, 2013, 12:42:46 AM
With regards to her points in the video, one struck me as particularly annoying. She pauses at one point to admit that many of these games contextualize the violence she's talking about, but that ultimately doesn't matter because violence against women is bad (reinforcing negative social norms RE: Women, etc.). Later, she says it's okay for women to die in stories, because taking that out completely would be ridiculous. Soooo... which is it? I wouldn't bother defended almost any of the games she showed (mostly because they're shit regardless), but claiming that context doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of things and then saying later that, well, of course women die too so women in fiction can die seems contradictory to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

Not contradictory at all, really. As Bongo points out, the contextualization of violence against women in the plot wouldn't be so bad if it were just one individual game. But when all of these games are taken as an aggregate, you're left with a lot of games with a pattern of justifying violence against women. When you discuss problematic story elements, the particular trope or whatever usually fits into a larger trend that can be analyzed. It's the ubiquity of these tropes that causes the problem. And really, she said women dying is okay in stories. Not the repeated victimization and brutal slayings for male motivation.

Now, for both Bal and Brentai, and think it's interesting that you refer to removing the Damsel trope from a story to be because of external pressures. As if the only reason not to use it is because of society frowning on its use. But, I think this is an example of privilege in this case. As evidenced by the still ubiquitous nature of the trope, male driven development can still utilize the trope to make and sale games to a largely male consumer base and still face only minimal criticism, which technically can be ignored.

I think it is possible to use the trope, but be aware of a few things: 1) It's regressive objectification of women. Whether you give the woman a personality or not, her role in the story is still as an object for the (usually) male character to retrieve and save. This is significant, and a point of lot of people seem to miss, because no matter how great you make your female character, she can ultimately be reduced to a prop or replaced by a power-up for the same motivation. 2) It is heavily used. Your game, the game next to, and probably 20 games on down the line might use variations on this trope. How would yours stand out?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: François on May 30, 2013, 01:02:56 AM
I get that no media is released in a vacuum, but the moment a creator is discouraged from creating what they want to create (or feel like creating, sometimes there's a difference) because of external factors is the moment where Bullshit happens. Again, you don't get more Y made by trying to ensure less X is getting made. A creator's only responsibility is quality; how the work is received is another story, anyone is free to interpret or enjoy or be offended, but that's art for ya. Brentai, I support your princess-rescuing antics, so long as they are well crafted and an accurate reflection of your intent as a developer. Just like I would support anyone making a good game that doesn't involve rescuing a girl, or like I would support anyone not wanting to play any sort of game where a girl is rescued.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 30, 2013, 01:13:54 AM
RE: Violence contradiction.

I think there is still a contradiction there. The aggregate misuse of the trope disallowing valid uses of the trope (as you and she seem to imply) should apply universally if it applies at all. She used Dishonored, for example. The Empress wasn't just killed to get you going, she was killed as part of a coup d'etat, and her daughter held captive to legitimize what would have been a politically unstable regency. That same conspiracy then frames you for the regicide, and lionizes the beloved former Empress as a martyr to justify the oppressive crackdown that follows. That's a pretty fucking good story, as far as I'm concerned. However, as presented in a montage with largely unjustifiable crap (most of which is crap for many other reasons besides), it's apparently all part of the same thing and not OK.

When she goes on to say that women dying in stories is OK, I am forced to ask "When?", because this aggregate effect you're describing still applies. Does she mean that they're only allowed to die of disease, age, and accidental injury?

RE: Hypothetic Damsel game

Well, with the second example of using the trope I gave, I don't give a shit if she stands out. When I played Super Mario Bros. I didn't care about saving the Princess at all, I just wanted to play the game. The game should stand out because it's a great game, and if you're making the kind of game where a completely generic damsel can work, then the way it will stand out will be through game play in any case.

Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 30, 2013, 01:21:10 AM
RE: Violence contradiction.

I think there is still a contradiction there. The aggregate misuse of the trope disallowing valid uses of the trope (as you and she seem to imply) should apply universally if it applies at all. She used Dishonored, for example. The Empress wasn't just killed to get you going, she was killed as part of a coup d'etat, and her daughter held captive to legitimize what would have been a politically unstable regency. That same conspiracy then frames you for the regicide, and lionizes the beloved former Empress as a martyr to justify the oppressive crackdown that follows. That's a pretty fucking good story, as far as I'm concerned. However, as presented in a montage with largely unjustifiable crap (most of which is crap for many other reasons besides), it's apparently all part of the same thing and not OK.

When she goes on to say that women dying in stories is OK, I am forced to ask "When?", because this aggregate effect you're describing still applies. Does she mean that they're only allowed to die of disease, age, and accidental injury?

If a violent death to motivate the male protagonist into action is the only kind of death you can think of for a woman, then yes, I can see how you feel the terms might be contradictory. But it is the re-use of this scenario that is troubling. And even in your summary of Dishonored, it still sounds kind of like women are killed or kidnapped as a means of motivating the male character to action.

Quote
RE: Hypothetic Damsel game

Well, with the second example of using the trope I gave, I don't give a shit if she stands out. When I played Super Mario Bros. I didn't care about saving the Princess at all, I just wanted to play the game. The game should stand out because it's a great game, and if you're making the kind of game where a completely generic damsel can work, then the way it will stand out will be through game play in any case.

Okay, so if it's a "great game" on its own, then why does it need the damsel in distress? Like you said, you didn't care about kidnapping the princess in Mario, so why even bother? Like, you make it sound like if you're going to create a "Great game", then it is a given that the hero must be male and that he must rescue a woman. If that story matters so little, then what's the harm in not using it? From what you said, it almost sounds like the generic damsel rescue story has to be employed or it won't be a great game.

I get that no media is released in a vacuum, but the moment a creator is discouraged from creating what they want to create (or feel like creating, sometimes there's a difference) because of external factors is the moment where Bullshit happens. Again, you don't get more Y made by trying to ensure less X is getting made. A creator's only responsibility is quality; how the work is received is another story, anyone is free to interpret or enjoy or be offended, but that's art for ya. Brentai, I support your princess-rescuing antics, so long as they are well crafted and an accurate reflection of your intent as a developer. Just like I would support anyone making a good game that doesn't involve rescuing a girl, or like I would support anyone not wanting to play any sort of game where a girl is rescued.

See, I think this comes across as trying to skirt the issue. You wed the idea of external social forces trying to exert an influence over the story of the game, but then hand wave it all with "a creator's responsibility is quality." There comes a point where even a well made Damsel in Distress story is, still, a Damsel in Distress story. At this point in time, the Damsel in Distress trope is so prevalent and so overused that one would think that someone making a well-crafted game could at least craft a better quality narrative.

Ultimately, nobody in this argument is suggesting that somebody exert control over a person's game. Well, unless you're a publisher, in case you probably are, because, you know, publishers. But one should question why, if you're willing to acknowledge that Damsel in Distress is overused and problematic, it still becomes you're go to as a creator. From all the countless numbers of stories, motivations and characters you could put in your game, why would you choose one you would freely admit has problems?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 30, 2013, 01:32:55 AM
Violent death in general seemed to have been disallowed, but ok, I'll bite, describe to me even a rough scenario of a woman in a video game suffering a violent end that would pass muster given the argument put forth so far. As for Dishonored, the death of the Empress gets everyone moving, because it's catastrophic for the country. Does the protagonist have a personal stake? Yes, but that doesn't cheapen the legitimate political intrigue that lead to her death, and the continuing intrigue as the various players jockey for power in the new order.

I was saying that in that hypothetical scenario I have decided to use the old save the princess scenario because I have a good game, but am not a good writer. Still, good idea or no, I would be resistant to change it if pressured from outside, because as I indicated I just don't like to be told what to do.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 30, 2013, 01:39:39 AM
Violent death in general seemed to have been disallowed, but ok, I'll bite, describe to me even a rough scenario of a woman in a video game suffering a violent end that would pass muster given the argument put forth so far. As for Dishonored, the death of the Empress gets everyone moving, because it's catastrophic for the country. Does the protagonist have a personal stake? Yes, but that doesn't cheapen the legitimate political intrigue that lead to her death, and the continuing intrigue as the various players jockey for power in the new order.

How about "The female character is given a satisfying character arc, and her death is for reasons other than motivating other male characters in the plot." Seriously, Bal, it's like the only way you can think a woman can die is if it's by a villain to motivate the lead character.

Quote
I was saying that in that hypothetical scenario I have decided to use the old save the princess scenario because I have a good game, but am not a good writer.

See, I accept the "not a good writer" premise. What I'm trying to understand is why you instantly jump to "damsel in distress" because you're not a good writer. I mean, in this situation, it's like you literally cannot think of anything, anything at all to motivate your main character to do anything. This isn't being a bad writer, this is being a willfully lazy one. You can't even justify why Damsel in Distress is a go to or how you could literally change it to something less problematic without altering your game.

Quote
Still, good idea or no, I would be resistant to change it if pressured from outside, because as I indicated I just don't like to be told what to do.

In this scenario, you sound like someone who is aware their story is problematic, wishes they could change it, but are allowing the very existence of outside criticism to dictate what your story is. You're not showing signs of free will or thought in your creation process, just a stubborn desire to not think because reasons.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 30, 2013, 01:43:54 AM
When she goes on to say that women dying in stories is OK, I am forced to ask "When?", because this aggregate effect you're describing still applies. Does she mean that they're only allowed to die of disease, age, and accidental injury?

Off the top of my head, how about a heroic death? Something where the woman in question retains her agency and is allowed to die the way she chooses.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on May 30, 2013, 02:12:31 AM
Ok, those are good, but that character better be really good, because to get that done she's going to have to be around for awhile. Also, I find it difficult to believe that the death of such a strong female character would fail to motivate any lead of whatever gender.

Constantine, I didn't even come up with the damsel being in the hypothesis in the first fucking place. I'm sticking to it because that's how it was phrased. Personally, it could be a magic rock you're after for all I care. I didn't "jump to the damsel", I'm just discussing the scenario proposed by Brentai in the first place. If I did put a damsel in a game like that, I would probably lamp shade it by having all the characters playing their parts like Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog).  That would at least amuse me personally.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Rico on May 30, 2013, 02:19:13 AM
How about "The female character is given a satisfying character arc, and her death is for reasons other than motivating other male characters in the plot." Seriously, Bal, it's like the only way you can think a woman can die is if it's by a villain to motivate the lead character.
So, in your world, is it more sexist because there would be absolutely 0 difference if there were an Emperor instead of an Empress and the game developer chose to make the character a woman? Because it seems like there's a no-win situation going on right now.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 30, 2013, 02:40:33 AM
Ok, those are good, but that character better be really good, because to get that done she's going to have to be around for awhile. Also, I find it difficult to believe that the death of such a strong female character would fail to motivate any lead of whatever gender.

Well, yeah, any character used in a story better be good to get me, the player, emotionally invested in the bad shit that happens to them. The issue is that, story-wise, setting up a female character as a wife, daughter, empress, etc. just to be killed as a means of kicking off the story is the problem. It doesn't use a real, developed character illicit any emotion, it simply uses gender roles to motivate the main character. The woman becomes property that has been taken away from the male character in order to motivate him.

Quote
Constantine, I didn't even come up with the damsel being in the hypothesis in the first fucking place. I'm sticking to it because that's how it was phrased. Personally, it could be a magic rock you're after for all I care. I didn't "jump to the damsel", I'm just discussing the scenario proposed by Brentai in the first place. If I did put a damsel in a game like that, I would probably lamp shade it by having all the characters playing their parts like Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Wolf_and_Sam_Sheepdog).  That would at least amuse me personally.

I'm not saying you came up with it, but you've been defending its use in a hypothetical game using first person pronouns to describe making it. I'm trying to question that, in the game making scenario described, why is it that to make a good game does the plot element of Damsel in Distress come up? Why is it considered a fundamental, boilerplate plot for a game? And why, once aware of its meanings and how simple it would be to change to almost anything else, would you resist just for the sake of resistance? That's what I'm getting at. That the plot point could come up without question, then be put into the game with no resistance. Is rescuing helpless women as fundamental to basic game creation as pressing a button to jump?


How about "The female character is given a satisfying character arc, and her death is for reasons other than motivating other male characters in the plot." Seriously, Bal, it's like the only way you can think a woman can die is if it's by a villain to motivate the lead character.
So, in your world, is it more sexist because there would be absolutely 0 difference if there were an Emperor instead of an Empress and the game developer chose to make the character a woman? Because it seems like there's a no-win situation going on right now.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on May 30, 2013, 02:44:16 AM
How many people are going to be mad if I start a "Did Aeris get fridged?" debate?

I would argue that no, she didn't, because while her death DOES motivate the male protagonist, that's not really its primary purpose.  If we wanna go all Joseph Campbell, she's the Christ figure in the story; she has to die so that she can redeem mankind and save the world (and she does the latter but the nice thing about FF7 in its original context without sequels or prequels is that we're left to wonder if she accomplished the former).  She's the only character who really knows what the fuck is going on, she's the only one who can stop it, and characters like that tend to die.

Of course, there's still the point that she's one of only two major female characters in the game (and, what, five female characters who are relevant to the story in any way?  And you could take Yuffie, Elmira, Scarlett, and Elena out with pretty minimal effect on the story), in a series, genre, and medium that's already kind of a sausagefest.  It bears noting that the stated purpose of the original WiR list was to point out that if you keep killing off all the likeable female characters you're going to have trouble attracting a female audience.

Course, since then 10 and 12 have done a pretty good job as female-led games -- though both of them had to have whiny blond teenage male POV characters to obscure the point that the most important character in the story was a woman.  10-2 managed an all-female principal cast, though its mechanics revolved around changing into different clothes.

6 of course had two prominent female characters, and insofar as you can say the game HAS a main character it's definitely one of the two of them, but they were still in a mostly-male cast and subject to their own sets of less-than-progressive tropes.

Can't say much about 13 as I never played it, but so far as I know it's got a female lead, at any rate.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 30, 2013, 02:55:43 AM
I'd say Aeris comes close to being fridged, but side-steps it rather graciously by a few reasons.

Mainly, she's allowed to be her own character before that. In fact, she ends up where she does at that point because of her own choices and agency. She decides to go into the mountain by herself, and isn't kidnapped or otherwise coerced. Aeris at least gets to make the decision to sacrifice herself for this purpose. She also isn't the motivation for Cloud to stop Sephiroth. Cloud and everyone else had already determined that what Sephiroth was doing was bad, and they had all had motivations to stop him before he killed Aeris.

Where it gets more muddled is that it's also used to develop Cloud, in that he kind of learns that his passive, self-centered personality gets people killed. But the fact that she gets developed as a character long before this happens, and isn't used as the reason that Cloud does anything at all keeps it from being a fridging.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 30, 2013, 02:57:07 AM
Quote
Brentai, I support your princess-rescuing antics

Interesting response.  A character I took pains to describe as "a heroine" had her status eroded to "princess".  A lot of other comments I see also seem to trend toward the assumption that the woman has no role in the story other than to patiently wait to be rescued.

I'm starting to feel like attitudes toward the trope are much more the problem than the trope itself.  The rescue fantasy is fairly unisex, I think.  I don't feel any less good about rescuing Super Joe than I do about rescuing Peach.  It's about helping people, really, and that's a positive plot point.  We're just so used to Peach and other "damsels" who don't do shit other than wear a pretty dress up in a tower somewhere that we start to associate anybody in a similar situation with useless waifishness.

RE: Aeris in a fridge.

Insofar that I tend to feel like Aeris' entire character was built up to make her death seem more poignant, yes, I would say that she was not only fridged, but actually freezer-packed.  This gets done to a lot of male characters too though (never make friends with any especially plucky redshirt) so it's more bad writing than sexism.  Which I guess means "fridged" isn't the proper term for it.  I'm sure TVTropes has a better one somewhere.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on May 30, 2013, 03:06:57 AM
I'm starting to feel like attitudes toward the trope are much more the problem than the trope itself.  The rescue fantasy is fairly unisex, I think.  I don't feel any less good about rescuing Super Joe than I do about rescuing Peach.  It's about helping people, really, and that's a positive plot point.

True, but it becomes a systemic problem when one of the main purposes for a female character in a game is to be a thing to be rescued/fought over.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 30, 2013, 03:17:02 AM
Maybe.  I'm starting to feel like the real problem is really just cynical writing, and people are starting to imprint their social issues on it because of a demographically-driven trend.

It's not even fair to criticize the writing of games before the 32-bit era because most of them, outside of RPGs, didn't really have any.  The Princess was treated as an object because The Princess was an object; they only had room to write in a chalice or trophy or something and maybe a few sentences to describe why it's so great and they opted for something with slightly more emotional weight.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Rico on May 30, 2013, 03:53:32 AM
I'm not quite sure what you're saying.
Let me go in another direction by paraphrasing one of Bal's earlier posts, because we're (this is my surprised face) pretty much on the same page of this one.

I agree with her overall message and theme. Poor example choice does not invalidate her broader overall message. But if you are in agreement with her message and a poor example comes up, it raises several questions: "Is she being dishonest when she claims that she is theoretically okay with women dying in stories?" (Probably not) "Is she just lazy in picking her examples?" (Most likely) "Is there something to this scenario which I thought was okay that is not okay?" (What I think your claim is regarding Dishonored).

Now, I get that you haven't played Dishonored. I think Bal's summary (which is basically the first 30 seconds of the game, making it even more irritating that it was lazily used as an example) pretty clearly shows that the Empress is a strong character who is killed for strong story reasons and that the motivation for her killing had nothing to do with her sex or the main character. But you seem to still have a problem with it, which raises Bal's earlier question of, "When she goes on to say that women dying in stories is OK, I am forced to ask 'When?'"
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 30, 2013, 04:26:05 AM
Wait wait wait. What exactly does the first 30 seconds do to make the Empress a strong character? All the stuff that happens afterwards is not part of the Empress's character. I mean, am I missing something, or does she die at the beginning of the game to kick off the events of the rest of the game or not? I freely admit to not playing the game, but you guys haven't suggested anything to me that she does more than just die then everyone else gets to do the story. Like, my issue is you guys keep trying to paint up the Empress's death as not an example of what it seems to be.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 30, 2013, 04:31:45 AM
I think he's saying that you learn why the Empress was murdered over the course of the game, and it becomes clear that her gender has fuck all to do with anything.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on May 30, 2013, 04:34:37 AM
I think he's saying that you learn why the Empress was murdered over the course of the game, and it becomes clear that her gender has fuck all to do with anything.

Anita says that the game implies a relationship between the Empress and the protagonist, most notably that they parented the hostage-child together. So it sounds like the gender has fuck all to do with a lot of things. But still, would you then deny that it is an example of a woman's role being to be killed to propel the plot forward? I get that a bunch of political machinations and intrigue happens after her death, but it still sounds like this is an example of a woman being killed entirely to motivate the other actors in the story.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: patito on May 30, 2013, 04:50:24 AM
The thing is, if a king had died to propel the story forward would it have been ok then? I mean, that's what royalty usually does in stories, they get killed in gruesome and helpless ways.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: François on May 30, 2013, 05:00:02 AM
See, I think this comes across as trying to skirt the issue. You wed the idea of external social forces trying to exert an influence over the story of the game, but then hand wave it all with "a creator's responsibility is quality." There comes a point where even a well made Damsel in Distress story is, still, a Damsel in Distress story. At this point in time, the Damsel in Distress trope is so prevalent and so overused that one would think that someone making a well-crafted game could at least craft a better quality narrative.

Ultimately, nobody in this argument is suggesting that somebody exert control over a person's game. Well, unless you're a publisher, in case you probably are, because, you know, publishers. But one should question why, if you're willing to acknowledge that Damsel in Distress is overused and problematic, it still becomes you're go to as a creator. From all the countless numbers of stories, motivations and characters you could put in your game, why would you choose one you would freely admit has problems?

I could say that it is overused, but "problematic", not really. Or rather, it is only problematic in that it is overused. It's not inherently worse than any other type of story that might be equally overused. But it could be done well, with enough skill. Of course, it being so overused makes it difficult to do well, and in fact historically it has very often been done very poorly, but if one is up to the challenge then I am on board.

Quote
Brentai, I support your princess-rescuing antics

Interesting response.  A character I took pains to describe as "a heroine" had her status eroded to "princess".  A lot of other comments I see also seem to trend toward the assumption that the woman has no role in the story other than to patiently wait to be rescued.

Oh yeah, I see, I definitely misread your post. It made me think you felt you potentially had something to apologize for so I figured a character more helpless than you intended. The point still stands though. You make the stories you want to make and that is that. If you want to tailor it to expected reactions from a portion of your audience then that is legitimate, especially in a commercial endeavor, but if you just gotta tell what you gotta tell, then that is also how art can work and no one should discourage you from it, so long as you are okay with eventual criticism.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Rico on May 30, 2013, 05:05:38 AM
She is a strong character in that she is a good Empress, was beloved by her citizenry, and everything went to shit after she stopped ruling. We don't need explicit statements of what specifically she's done to get to that point, but she is immediately and then continually portrayed as good at her job.

The conjecture that Corvo and the Empress may have been involved and that Emily may be his kid is unconfirmed (and intentionally ambiguous), but whichever way that coin-flip falls, it would do absolutely nothing to change what Corvo does over the course of the game.

Quote
But still, would you then deny that it is an example of a woman's role being to be killed to propel the plot forward? I get that a bunch of political machinations and intrigue happens after her death, but it still sounds like this is an example of a woman being killed entirely to motivate the other actors in the story.
Yes, I would absolutely deny it. That she dies is due to other actors in the story already having strong motivations, and well... I'm struggling with a diplomatic way to put this:
The protagonist is a bodyguard to a political figure. I mean, hell, when the police and secret service investigated the JFK assassination was JFK assassinated "entirely" to motivate the secret fucking service?




I'll just add this in since no one's posted. My main question is: If this is an example of what games are doing wrong with regards to female characters, how and why? Because from where I and a lot of other people are sitting it looks like it should be fine. Is there something we're missing? Is Sarkeesian just taking an extreme viewpoint? What's going on here?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on May 30, 2013, 06:18:26 AM
I think, in a weird way, it should also be noted that in Dishonored she dies yes, but she is also with you throughout the entire rest of the game. I mean sure, this is achieved by you carrying around her STILL BEATING HEART and a mental link through MAGICKS, but she is literally the one telling you what to do and when to do it throughout the entire game. She dies within the first ten minutes, but she's also, by a WIDE margin, the most fleshed out character in the game, as Corvo is mostly 'silent hero'.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 30, 2013, 06:24:22 AM
Dude, reality isn't a fiction crafted by a narrator.
Apples. Oranges.

Or rather, it is only problematic in that it is overused.
Well, the over use and how it reinforces or plays to (negative) gender stereotypes.

She is a strong character in that she is a good Empress
From what I understand the Empress isn't removed from the story at that point either... But... well... spoilers (http://dishonored.wikia.com/wiki/The_Heart)? And problematic all on its own. I'm willing to give Dishonored the benefit of the doubt (http://www.themarysue.com/but-alas-she-is-a-woman-how-dishonored-uses-gender-roles-to-tell-a-story/) because they're definitely trying to address systemic sexism and how it exists even in a society with a female monarch. But...
Campster rambles about Dishonered:
Errant Signal - Dishonored (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRrM3RI0a4I#ws)
Actual talk of sexism starts at 15:00
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Rico on May 30, 2013, 08:04:07 AM
Dude, reality isn't a fiction crafted by a narrator.
Apples. Oranges.
Pretend for a moment that the JFK assassination was a completely fictional event written for a video game, that in that game you play as the head of the Secret Service, and that the gameplay begins shortly after the assassination. Would this be "an example of a woman President being killed entirely to motivate the other actors in the story."?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on May 30, 2013, 08:48:23 AM
Hey, sorry for snapping with the "Apples. Oranges." Thing. You did not deserve that. I was also imprecise in my language, though I think you understood my sentiments.

REVIEW OF SHIT WE ALREADY KNOW INCOMING:
As soon as we're analyzing a narrative that we can assume to be deliberate (kind of essential to the discussion I think), we can start making comparisons. In real life, people's motivations are complicated and our exposure to them doesn't end after the conclusion of a story/narrative. However, even if we're writing non-fiction the person who presents the non-fiction as a narrative is making choices about what to include or not to include.

In that game you play as the head of the Secret Service, and that the gameplay begins shortly after the assassination.
ACTUAL ANSWER:
You've framed it so that JFK's only impact to the narrative is dying. So, yes, unless JFK continues to appear in the narrative (as a character with agency) after his death his agency is unimportant to the narrative. JFK's death is being used to explain or as the catalyst for the rest of the narrative.

Of course, it's kind of a different kettle of fish when we're talking about women... and I don't think we need another paragraph describing what I'm pretty sure we all already know.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on May 30, 2013, 01:03:17 PM
The victim of a murder mystery is rarely a character at all. (Some writers are good enough to write characters whose sole interaction with the story is posthumous.)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on May 31, 2013, 03:47:23 AM
the average action hero only cares about two people: his girl and the president
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on May 31, 2013, 04:19:03 AM
what about the scumbag responsible for the whole mess (assuming neither his girl nor the president is the scumbag in question)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on May 31, 2013, 04:30:36 AM
What if your girl is the President and also responsible for this mess?

This is an important consideration if you're going to date Friday.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on May 31, 2013, 05:36:37 AM
This is another fine mess you've gotten us into.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on June 03, 2013, 09:13:46 AM
I realize now that I didn't reply to this business:
My main question is: If this is an example of what games are doing wrong with regards to female characters, how and why? Because from where I and a lot of other people are sitting it looks like it should be fine. Is there something we're missing?
The point of including Dishonored, even if Dishonored represents a good game or a game where the trope is meaningfully subverted (though I'd bet that Sarkeesian has a fistful of problems with Dishonored above and beyond this use-of-trope), is to show how pervasive and unquestioned the trope is. Assuming Dishonored is to sexism what SpecOps: The Line is to fascist jingoism, they both only work as criticism of those tropes because they've got tropes to subvert, no?

Again: Sarkeesian's going to waste a minute of every video reminding people that it's OK to criticize stuff you like. It's even possible she (or rather, Feminist Frequency) likes Dishonored overall.

EDIT:
Retroactively added correction described below.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Rico on June 03, 2013, 10:30:13 AM
they both only work because they've got tropes to subvert, no?
That is a hell of an assertion. Would you care to follow through on that?Because, uh, boy...
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on June 03, 2013, 10:52:05 AM
Dammit Rico. Be more psychic.

they both only work as criticism of those tropes because they've got those tropes to subvert, no?
That is a hell of an assertion. Would you care to follow through on that?Because, uh, boy...

Maybe you should be a little more specific about your complaint if you'd already understood that as my assertion?
I think it has been clear that technical proficiency and message aren't necessarily linked since Triumph of the Will.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on June 05, 2013, 03:08:42 AM
Anita Sarkeesian and the Trouble With Magic Bullets (http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2013/06/hyper-mode-anita-sarkeesian-and-the-trouble-with-m.html)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on June 09, 2013, 03:01:22 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/OYEHGAt.jpg)

If this was intentional, I love you, Atlus.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on June 11, 2013, 12:18:21 PM
http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/52673540142/twitter-vs-female-protagonists-in-video-games (http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/52673540142/twitter-vs-female-protagonists-in-video-games)

(http://media.tumblr.com/70ada9ca456932cf07a05c16619c6a8f/tumblr_inline_mo7975dmMf1qz4rgp.jpg)

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on June 11, 2013, 12:32:46 PM
I liked this one the best:

(http://i.imgur.com/WtRJkYl.jpg)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on June 11, 2013, 01:23:20 PM
I'm adding all variants of "check your privilege" to my "instantly lasered from orbit by satellite built specifically for this purpose" when I become President of Space
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on June 11, 2013, 03:44:38 PM
Check your laser privilege.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on June 11, 2013, 03:57:41 PM
Laser entitlements.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on June 12, 2013, 07:03:49 AM
You know, I think Final Fantasy XV might be the closest we'll come to actual male sexualization in gaming.  At least, I find it hard to believe that those character designs are primarily meant to appeal to straight men.

I don't find it... uncomfortable, really, just not very much to my tastes.  I imagine if this were how the entire gaming landscape appeared to me then I'd have a pretty bitter feeling about it too.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on June 12, 2013, 07:17:23 AM
The first thing that came to mind for me was The Bouncer.

(http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/48621-the-bouncer-playstation-2-screenshot-first-attack-surprised.jpg)
(if the guys had shirts no one would know which of those was the female lead)

Thinking about it, though, 'generic anime, pretty one, big one, none of which are properly dressed' has been the Square system for main characters for a while.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: TA on June 12, 2013, 07:44:51 AM
You know, I think Final Fantasy XV might be the closest we'll come to actual male sexualization in gaming.  At least, I find it hard to believe that those character designs are primarily meant to appeal to straight men.

I don't find it... uncomfortable, really, just not very much to my tastes.  I imagine if this were how the entire gaming landscape appeared to me then I'd have a pretty bitter feeling about it too.

(http://i.imgur.com/DVMQP1A.png)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: MarsDragon on June 12, 2013, 11:43:39 AM
The weird thing is, at least in the west most fangirls don't even seem to like Vaan that much. It's all about Balthier. (for completely understandable reasons) Sometimes Basch or Larsa.

That said, Square has definitely been courting the female market for awhile now. Look at Kingdom Hearts. 
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on June 12, 2013, 12:29:33 PM
You know, the more I think about it the more I would love to see somebody actually try to adapt Amano's designs straight across.

I can't even begin to imagine how they would look in motion.  Which is half the reason I want to see someone try.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: TA on June 12, 2013, 12:51:49 PM
You know, the more I think about it the more I would love to see somebody actually try to adapt Amano's designs straight across.

I can't even begin to imagine how they would look in motion.  Which is half the reason I want to see someone try.

(http://i.imgur.com/vzTNxNH.jpg)

You rang?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mothra on June 12, 2013, 01:05:55 PM
I'm adding all variants of "check your privilege" to my "instantly lasered from orbit by satellite built specifically for this purpose" when I become President of Space

God, yes.

Friday can you fill out the following for me:

FRIDAY'S TOP FIVE ORBITAL SOL BLASTING (FROM SPACE) TRIGGER PHRASES
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on June 12, 2013, 01:07:24 PM
Yeah I was going to say there's a Vampire Hunter D game on the PSX.

Unfortunately for obvious reasons it ends up looking more like "a PSX game" than "a Vampire Hunter D game".

Big problem with Amano paintings proper is that they very rarely have non-abstract backgrounds, so it's hard to even figure out what they would look like in an actual world.  Even VHD has to compromise the designs to make them look like things that exist.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on June 12, 2013, 01:39:01 PM
You know, the more I think about it the more I would love to see somebody actually try to adapt Amano's designs straight across.

I can't even begin to imagine how they would look in motion.  Which is half the reason I want to see someone try.

2012年春全世界公開の天野喜孝監督作品『DEVA ZAN』特別映像が解禁 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLu5VSdYAg#)

I don't have any other information about this, entitled "Deva Zan," except that Yoshitaka Amano was deeply involved and he is the reason that looks the way it does. Apparently, the movie actually came out! There's a graphic novel adaptation, too. But I can't find anything in English.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on June 12, 2013, 03:54:30 PM
Yeah, that's a bit closer to what I was picturing.  And Brent's right -- not a whole lot in the way of backgrounds.



(I dated a chick named D once.)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on June 13, 2013, 12:09:43 AM
Did you give her the...?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on June 13, 2013, 02:21:14 AM
Apparently he got it all to himself.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 08:43:18 AM
Damsel in Distress: Part 3 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjImnqH_KwM#ws)

Part three is up! This one's about Dudes in Distress.

PREPARE FOR THE NERDRAGEPOCALYPSE
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on August 01, 2013, 09:21:53 AM
tune in to 16:05 for a surprise
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Crouton on August 01, 2013, 10:26:10 AM
and another @ 8:25.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 01, 2013, 10:39:49 AM
Have we reached the point were we can disagree with Anita Sarkeesan and not be called a fedora-wearing MRA misogynist yet? Because Anita is still doing poorly, and that's not even counting the fact that she may not even be playing the games, but ripping LPs off youtube (http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html).
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on August 01, 2013, 10:50:52 AM
This video's highlights:


"'one recent study' 'found' only '4%' of 'modern' titles are 'exclusively' designed around a 'female' in a 'leading' 'role'." Just about covers her normal levels of research.

Spelunky having multiple options for damsels doesn't count because one of them is a dog and that just degrades women worse somehow, doesn't matter that there are also female PCs. Also is apparently reinforcing the negative gender role that women are often lost in caves.

When she reveals Eversion's incredibly deep and gender biased plot. And after that when she reveals that it's both sexist for having a princess damsel and for... having a female character who ends up being neither a princess nor damsel. With that hilarious punchline ending and all.

"Old games were the most sexist! Games never stopped being sexist! Modern games are the mostest sexistiest! New indie games are reintroducing sexism since I guess it wasn't there for a while because sexism didn't exist while Buffy was still on the air or something!"

Braid is the best game ever because you're not the hero saving the damsel. I mean, she is still being saved by a literal knight in shining armor, but it's not you so it doesn't count.

The only way to avoid sexism is if you control multiple characters all of which are genderless. Not games like Mass Effect and Saint's Row where you can play either sex and the story / writing works as well for either choice. Or even fucking Trine, the exact same idea except with humans instead of blocks / block-shaped creatures. Remember, safe sex never works, only abstinence.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on August 01, 2013, 10:52:45 AM
It's hard to tell what's funnier; the fact that she is scouring boring ass longplays for proof of misogyny with very little research otherwise, or that dorks on the internet hate her so much that they will scour the same boring ass longplays to prove that she used them.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on August 01, 2013, 10:53:28 AM
Man whoever made Eversion must be some sort of insufferable misogynist pig.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on August 01, 2013, 10:53:53 AM
Also: dude, spoilers.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 01, 2013, 10:57:38 AM
You know, you can rationalize outrage about ANYTHING if you try hard enough.

But then, I think this really would be a "who gives a flying fuck" situation, if only this wasn't giving actual misogynists ammunition for bullshit outrage of their own.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 01, 2013, 11:03:46 AM
One way this could have turned out better would have been to do it as an traditional cohesive long-form documentary instead of clips. I mean, maybe you could break it down into two or three chapters, but not the little peicemeal affair she's got going now.

The biggest improvement that would add is the opportunity to celebrate positives for long stretches of time without it dominating a chapter. Most of these videos seem to be overwhelmingly negative in tone even when she's making concessions, and honestly, who the hell likes that? No movement promoting social change ever succeeded when it was comprised of dry nagging. Watching these videoes almost feels like I'm attending a modern-day Temperance meeting.

A long form could have also allowed her to tell this in story form, documenting change over time (or non-change, where appropriate) from the more-or-less gender-neutral early games, to the rise of the original tropes sources, to modern responses, parodies, and the increase of games with female protagonists and how they're treated.

That would have actually been interesting!

It would have also been easier to hire respected video editors or experts for a long-form project. 
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 01, 2013, 11:06:51 AM
It's hard to tell what's funnier; the fact that she is scouring boring ass longplays for proof of misogyny with very little research otherwise, or that dorks on the internet hate her so much that they will scour the same boring ass longplays to prove that she used them.

Apparently it started with her now-removed Bayonetta video, where she got so much wrong she pulled it when called on it, so it's not like this is a random LET'S ANALYZE EVERYTHING AND THEN WATCH EVERY VIDEO ON THE INTERNET.

As the link says, the Shadows of the Damned thing was a "dead giveaway" because of how the guns work visually in that game. I imagine someone noticed it or something odd, and then it domino'd from there.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 01, 2013, 11:09:16 AM
How do you fuck up making fun of something as comical as Bayonetta?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on August 01, 2013, 11:14:29 AM
ZARA, YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on August 01, 2013, 11:15:20 AM
How do you fuck up making fun of something as comical as Bayonetta?
You don't fuck up making fun of it, you get literally every plot point you bring up wrong.

The only part of that video I remember (having never played Bayonetta) is that she regularly mentions Bayonetta's 'daughter' when referring to flashback scenes of B-dawg as a child.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 01, 2013, 11:19:13 AM
Having played Bayonetta almost religiously (It is seriously fun as shit in the vein of Devil May Cry), she keeps calling Bayonetta a single mother, she gets the plot wrong wholesale, she says Bayonetta is forced to strip (She's not, she only removes her clothes for Wicked Weave attacks, it's the visual indicator you're performing them; even then, she's still basically in a swimsuit.), and generally getting the impression one would get if they looked at the box cover for it and based their entire observations off that, instead of actually, you know, playing the game:

Not-Actually-Spoilers: Bayonetta is not a single mother, nor a single anything. She's never forced to strip, at all. She is pretty much a combination of the ideal female powerful protagonist and a hypersexualized parody of the idea of male wankbait protagonist. The entire thing is played as a huge comical parody, ripe for mocking, while at the same time mocking actually bad shit. It's just a very fun game. (The guy who made it also made and came up with Devil May Cry, so this is not exactly a big surprise)

Bayonetta is entirely in control, the entire time, and is the exact opposite of what Sarkeesan wanted her to be for her point. But her head is so far up her own fucking ass, I'm surprised she doesn't decapitate herself whenever she clenches.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 11:49:00 AM
This video's highlights:

Spelunky having multiple options for damsels doesn't count because one of them is a dog and that just degrades women worse somehow, doesn't matter that there are also female PCs. Also is apparently reinforcing the negative gender role that women are often lost in caves.

Not what she's saying.

When she reveals Eversion's incredibly deep and gender biased plot. And after that when she reveals that it's both sexist for having a princess damsel and for... having a female character who ends up being neither a princess nor damsel. With that hilarious punchline ending and all.

I'll leave that one for Zara to reply to, since he's the one who made the game.

"Old games were the most sexist! Games never stopped being sexist! Modern games are the mostest sexistiest! New indie games are reintroducing sexism since I guess it wasn't there for a while because sexism didn't exist while Buffy was still on the air or something!"

Not what she's saying.

Braid is the best game ever because you're not the hero saving the damsel. I mean, she is still being saved by a literal knight in shining armor, but it's not you so it doesn't count.

Not what she's saying.

The only way to avoid sexism is if you control multiple characters all of which are genderless. Not games like Mass Effect and Saint's Row where you can play either sex and the story / writing works as well for either choice. Or even fucking Trine, the exact same idea except with humans instead of blocks / block-shaped creatures. Remember, safe sex never works, only abstinence.

Wait for it...

Not what she's saying, nor is it a thing she has ever said, in any of these videos.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 12:07:25 PM
Have we reached the point were we can disagree with Anita Sarkeesan and not be called a fedora-wearing MRA misogynist yet? Because Anita is still doing poorly, and that's not even counting the fact that she may not even be playing the games, but ripping LPs off youtube (http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html).

While I do think proper credit is important, and if she is using then without permission or credit, that's bad, I think it's a bit silly to criticize her for not playing the games personally. As far as I know, that's not something she ever said she would do, and it's frankly kind of ridiculous to expect one person to play that many games herself in order to make YouTube videos about them.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 12:13:28 PM
That being said, I do look forward to WeedlordBonerHitler666's no doubt painstakingly researched and sourced response video.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: TA on August 01, 2013, 12:14:17 PM
Have we reached the point were we can disagree with Anita Sarkeesan and not be called a fedora-wearing MRA misogynist yet? Because Anita is still doing poorly, and that's not even counting the fact that she may not even be playing the games, but ripping LPs off youtube (http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html).

While I do think proper credit is important, and if she is using then without permission or credit, that's bad, I think it's a bit silly to criticize her for not playing the games personally. As far as I know, that's not something she ever said she would do, and it's frankly kind of ridiculous to expect one person to play that many games herself in order to make YouTube videos about them.

Really?  Because I thought she received a hundred and fifty thousand dollars to do exactly that.  In fact ...

Quote from: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games?ref=live
Creating these videos take a lot of time and money to produce. I will be researching and playing hundreds of titles from across the gaming industry (including some truly awful games that I wouldn’t wish upon anyone!). Your support will go towards production costs, equipment, games and downloadable content.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on August 01, 2013, 12:17:25 PM
Technically even in the link you just quoted it says she'll be researching AND playing hundreds of games, not exclusively playing them. Just saying. This entire series is at a weird place for me. I WANT it to be worth talking about, but I don't feel like it is, after all has been said and done.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 01, 2013, 12:23:41 PM
I think it's a bit silly to criticize her for not playing the games personally.

I think it's entirely reasonable to criticize her for not playing the games, at all, that she is supposed to be speaking from a well-researched position.

In so many words, if she can't even bother to play them, why the fuck should anyone trust what she has to say about them, especially since she's supposed to be speaking from a position of trying to educate? As has been demonstrated multiple times, by not playing them, she's getting a lot of shit wrong.

I'm in the same boat as Joxam. I want to be able to have an honest, mature, in depth discussion on women's places in video games, and how it could be better. Anita is so far removed from anyone who should be close to that position. She has a specific idea what she wants to say, and says it, independent of sanity, reality, or the laws of physics.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 01, 2013, 12:35:42 PM
I don't think it's at all unreasonable for her to not play ALL of the games.

She should however be playing at least SOME of them. Especially important ones, or ones she references frequently.

Right now, she's creating doubts as to whether or not she's played ANY of them.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on August 01, 2013, 12:42:11 PM
All of Ted's responses.
Makes sense that you wouldn't expect someone making videos on a subject to have experienced the material they're talking about, since clearly you're not actually paying attention to things she says or does to still be defending her the ways you are.

Obviously I don't take my responses to her videos seriously because I don't take her videos seriously. But how about you defend her with more than 'no u' and actually tell me what she means when she says those things, because it's what I'm hearing.

(protip: if your response to one of her topics is being unwilling to assert a point she is making unless the person who created the material tells you it's okay to think that's what she meant, you're probably not putting a lot of critical thought into your analysis.)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on August 01, 2013, 12:43:27 PM
Well, what does it mean when someone says 'your game is sexist'?

Your game offends me as a woman/man/tumblr - in that case, well, I feel bad about it, but your opinion is going to be tabulated with all the other people that are/aren't offended by the game. Since I have received roughly zero complaints otherwise, trying to discover just what permutation of genders and races is less offensive is largely pointless.

Your game is actively supporting the societal system that keeps women/other oppressed gender/third oppressed gender down - Well that is fucking complicated to determine, isn't it. Well, probably, but I can't spontaneously cease to be white, male or Protestant, or will female programmers or musicians to come into existence nearby and aid me. (Believe me, i've tried.)

So, while I do appreciate the feedback (even if small and disconsiderate of the full context of the work) I'm not sure what I could do to make the issue go away.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 12:46:36 PM
All of Ted's responses.
Makes sense that you wouldn't expect someone making videos on a subject to have experienced the material they're talking about, since clearly you're not actually paying attention to things she says or does to still be defending her the ways you are.

Obviously I don't take my responses to her videos seriously because I don't take her videos seriously. But how about you defend her with more than 'no u' and actually tell me what she means when she says those things, because it's what I'm hearing.

(protip: if your response to one of her topics is being unwilling to assert a point she is making unless the person who created the material tells you it's okay to think that's what she meant, you're probably not putting a lot of critical thought into your analysis.)

Protip: if my responses seem like I'm not putting a lot of critical thought into them, it's probably because I was on the bus and didn't feel like putting too much effort into validating your straw man arguments. :-) :-) :-)

EDIT: and also because I was researching / writing a blog post about the blanket octopus, which I am frankly way more interested in than I am in having an argument about whether Anita Sarkeezian is trying to censor videogame developers or whatever.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on August 01, 2013, 12:56:14 PM
EDIT: and also because I was researching / writing a blog post about the blanket octopus, which I am frankly way more interested in than I am in having an argument about whether Anita Sarkeezian is trying to censor videogame developers or whatever.

Seriously Ted?

This one isn't even a part of the actual conversation at hand anymore, but you're better than the sort who posts content, then decides they're actually way to busy to talk about it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Crouton on August 01, 2013, 12:59:58 PM
Something that bother's me about her arguments/research is that I can't help but wonder if she's come across games that offer valuable counterpoints to her analysis, and intentionally avoided bringing them up as a result.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 01:08:52 PM
That's something you're taught to do in basic English composition, so uhh, sure?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 01, 2013, 01:16:33 PM
"Anita might not actually have the kind of knowledge of the subject that she needs to make her statements carry any weight."

Welcome to where I was back at video 1, you guys.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Crouton on August 01, 2013, 01:24:59 PM
Better question then. Which is more sexist, the nerds defending the status quo by raging against everything she says, or the nerds who defend her position because they want to bang her? Personally I think the latter since whiteknighting contributes to the notion that women are helpless and need defending.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on August 01, 2013, 01:26:17 PM
Of course, those of us here who defended her position were, largely, not doing it because we wanted to bang her. I for one, only defended her position until the breadth of her work was there to judge. As it has not conclusively proved anything or put forth any new, valuable or even very coherent arguments, I have stopped defending it. I just wasn't willing to call her completely out of the race until I'd seen everything she had to offer.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 01, 2013, 01:30:59 PM
First you have to figure out how many people are shooting the messager and how many are shooting the message.

What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make.  That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 01, 2013, 01:32:31 PM
"Anita might not actually have the kind of knowledge of the subject that she needs to make her statements carry any weight."

Welcome to where I was back at video 1, you guys.

That still doesn't stop people from assuming that if you disagree with her, you're a misogynist.

Here's what bothers me most: I'm pretty sure at the start of this discussion, which got spread across like five fucking threads on these boards, I mentioned that someone dug up her thesis and earlier work before feminist frequency. And it was awful from an academic standpoint. Instead of trying to educate or present something, Anita declares a worldview and tells you why it's right, even when it's profoundly wrong or has several holes in it. She starts at what she wants to say, and then goes backwards, cherry-picking and as we see here, just fucking making shit up, to fill it in.

Maybe after this video people will stop caring about her and she can go spend all the money on blow or what the fuck ever.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on August 01, 2013, 01:32:45 PM
Aisha Tyler is fucking amazing by the way. As far as gamer/nerd girls go in pop culture she's kicking ass and taking names like I don't think anyone has done so far. Now her, I don't mind saying, I find rather fetching, in a manly fashion.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Crouton on August 01, 2013, 01:34:10 PM
That's something you're taught to do in basic English composition, so uhh, sure?

Perhaps, but in basic scientific composition, we're taught to acknowledge all the facts we come across and not just those that pertain to our hypothesis. The purpose of research and practical application is to find out whether or not our argument holds water.

So A in English, F in Science.

Quote
What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make (which are probably substantial).  That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.
Seconded.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 02:00:22 PM
whiteknighting

ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 02:04:09 PM
EDIT: and also because I was researching / writing a blog post about the blanket octopus, which I am frankly way more interested in than I am in having an argument about whether Anita Sarkeezian is trying to censor videogame developers or whatever.

Seriously Ted?

This one isn't even a part of the actual conversation at hand anymore, but you're better than the sort who posts content, then decides they're actually way to busy to talk about it.

Okay, fine:  here's my post about the blanket octopus. (http://tedkalens.wordpress.com/2013/08/02/the-blanket-octopuss-incredibleand-gruesome-secret-weapon/)

Also, something I didn't mention: when the blanket octopus mates, the male rips off one of his own limbs and uses that to fertilize the eggs, and then he dies. Misandry!
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ocksi on August 01, 2013, 02:10:31 PM
I'd like to see specific criticism of the video (or her others), because right now "defending Anita" is specifically just defending her, which is stupid and pointless because if you have to defend her, you're not defending her arguments and that puts the discussion in exactly the wrong context. The thing I've noticed with all three videos here and elsewhere is people attacking her rarely break down her message or even really address her point at all and cherry pick her examples for places she is wrong/mistaken.

The issue with that cherry picking is that while she may not give appropriate context of why something is happening in a game, that's not a point she's ever making. Her points are all examples of it existing regardless of context, which I think is for the most part valid because Anita is effectively offering the list at the bottom of any TVtropes page. I wish there were deeper discussion and I feel like (or at least hope) that's the direction this series is supposed to be going, but after all three releases it really feels like people are way more interested in arguing specific examples than the big picture she's trying to address.

Like I said, I'd like to see the direction her videos go overall to see if they even reach a point to facilitate discussion, because I'm generally on her side about this and would like to talk about it with people. But, again, the issue seems to be that she is simply saying "women in video games get damsel'd all the goddamned time and it's getting ridiculous after 30 years" and the majority of people against her stance just want to prove why this or that game isn't actually a damseling so she must be full of it. And I definitely think the absolutely ludicrous uproar over the DK romhack or even the stupidity of the response to her Kickstarter campaign pretty much justify her overall stance on this.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 01, 2013, 02:28:38 PM
I just want to take a moment out to say that the whole idea of "white knighting always = wanting to fuck the person/thing you are defending" is among some of the more idiotic things on the internet.

Lots of people can and will defend a person or idea out of a hazy and ill-informed idea that it's "Good" and that by defending it (i.e. by being white knights), they too are "Good" by extension. There is actually nothing new about that sort of behaviour. The idea has had a long and illustrious career, one which long predates the internet or modern women's rights movements.

Perhaps in some cases, there is an additional layer of wanting to bang the subject/victim, when the defendee is a woman, but that's not mandatory by any means. Plenty of "white knights" are honestly offended at the implication that that they want to sleep with their "charge", but that doesn't mean they're not ignorant or that their positions aren't overreactive or otherwise asinine. 

I mean, plenty of people love to be the hero and will play the role - as they understand it - to the hilt. It's just that many of those people are also morons.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on August 01, 2013, 02:29:40 PM
Ted: Beat Bandit's right.  All your responses really ARE just "nuh-uh" nonsense, and you can do better.

Beat Bandit: Ted's right; your argument style seems to consist primarily -- and I'm not just talking about this thread -- of humorously rephrasing an exaggerated version of what you believe your opponent is saying.  Or, to put it another way, debating strawmen.  I think if you spent some time actually considering and responding to what people ACTUALLY say instead of seemingly-willful misinterpretations of their words, you'd have much more productive conversations.  There's plenty of room for criticism of Sarkeesian's work without an endless litany of "So/Got it, So/Got it."

Crouton: Holy shit, man, here I was thinking Stupidest Post in This Thread was a legitimately tough competition and you just walked away with it like you never even broke a sweat.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on August 01, 2013, 02:59:02 PM
What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make.  That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.

This wouldn't work because I've seen stream chats of the Ubisoft E3 presentations. For some reason gamers really hate Aisha Tyler because she is a black woman.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 03:05:48 PM
I...think that was the point Brent was trying to make?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on August 01, 2013, 03:10:50 PM
No, he was saying if you switch Anita out with some random other person, we would be able to see if everyone hates her, or just her message. Replacing her with someone who also for some reason gets a lot of hate won't really get results.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 01, 2013, 03:13:27 PM
Maybe Brentai just likes big black booty.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on August 01, 2013, 03:30:03 PM
What I want right now, and I'm serious, is for Aisha Tyler to do these same exact videos, making whatever changes she feels she needs to make.  That would probably make the question of who's angry at what a lot clearer.

This wouldn't work because I've seen stream chats of the Ubisoft E3 presentations. For some reason gamers really hate Aisha Tyler because she is a black woman.

... Do you have painful transcripts of the above to share?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 01, 2013, 03:37:09 PM
No, he was saying if you switch Anita out with some random other person, we would be able to see if everyone hates her, or just her message. Replacing her with someone who also for some reason gets a lot of hate won't really get results.

Oh, okay. I read it as, "Since Aisha Tyler is black in addition to being a woman, the people who are just hating the messenger will be a LOT more forthright and obvious about it."
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on August 01, 2013, 03:46:27 PM
Classic: No, but there was a short period of time when I forgot that I had the chat box on twitch open, and it was just a long line of "Who's the black bitch?" over and over again. And then there's the whole thing where she had been still getting flak about "not knowing anything about games" from E3 2012 into this year, so yeah, gamers have a beef with Aisha Tyler for some unknown reason.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 01, 2013, 05:38:37 PM
I was really going for "Aisha Tyler is clearly a gamer and Anita Sarkeesian is not."

And that's the crux of the problem, I think.  It doesn't matter if she's male, female, white, black, American, Japanese, Democrat, Republic, big-endian, or little-endian.  She can be any of those things (theoretically, apparently not, but work with me here).  What she can't be is an outsider.

I'm sure this girl plays games and enjoys them but it's not her Thing.  It's not her hobby.  Take away gaming and she's still the same person, a feminist blogger.  But it's her audience's thing and it's her audience's hobby and they're not the same without it and that's important.  You might have noticed over the years that gamers have an extremely insular culture.  Even among hobbyists it's a little exaggerated, but it's nothing you wouldn't see with any other pastime.  Try addressing a group of serious weightlifters with the opening "I enjoy lifting weights and I've studied weightlifting for a while and this is what I think a lot of you could be doing better" and see if you get more than a four word question that's already been answered.

The realization I've come to is that it's not really Anita's fault that she couldn't measure up to the Internet's standards.  It was just a bad goddam idea from the start.  No amount of accurate research is going to make her less of an intruder, and I think most of the noise that's rising up around her is a lot of people who would, from the right person, be entirely receptive to the message, but is so defensive about the messenger that they're just going to attack her on any goddam grounds they can find.  Because nobody's going to just up and admit "You're just plain not welcome in our club house."
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on August 01, 2013, 06:47:57 PM
An outsider gets attention that an insider probably wouldn't, merely for being "intrusive." There are people writing far more intelligently about this issue who - well, I wouldn't call them "obscure," but it's just business as usual for them. Progress is being made by the vanguard. You can probably think of a few. They focus on exploring their ideas rather than on producing link bait, so they're not as popular, but they are out there.

Frankly, I wouldn't expect someone who fits into "gamer culture" to make something noticeably more intelligent. It would probably have fewer outright factual errors, but still fail to draw a conclusion from them that's more than puddle-deep. This is because games have no established tradition of criticism, no language or common idioms with which to evaluate games more deeply. Remember that we are talking about art, not merely the hobby of consuming it. (Progress is also happening here, but it will probably never filter through to the hobbyists or to the general public. This is okay.)

It's necessary first to establish at least one passable theory of criticism. With one of those, it will be possible to communicate complex ideas about games farther than any single insular community. Then you can use that theory to examine games' treatment of gender issues. If you don't have a way to apply these ideas to the medium of games, the best you can do is analyze them using tools developed for looking at books or films or TV commercials or whatever, which are no more suitable for games than they are for each other. That in turn means relying on the audience to fill in the gaps based on their own knowledge of feminism, which might work for the readers of a feminist blog but not for players of video games. There are many whose knowledge of feminism begins and ends with "a woman is scolding me for something," so right there they're already taking it in the most personal and useless manner possible.

(If you're taking "the Internet" in aggregate, though, you will be disappointed; rather than tracking any realistic measure of progress, you're in effect measuring a cross-section of Kotaku commenters, a self-selected demographic; first take the people dumb enough to read Kotaku, and then from among those take those who are dumb enough (or frequent enough readers) not to realize that commenting on Kotaku articles is useless, and you should see why you're not getting representative data.)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on August 01, 2013, 07:08:04 PM

Brent, did you just "fake geek girl" Sarkeesian?

EDIT:
Sorry. Sleepy. Look: As far as I can tell "Fake Geek Girl" is a way for geeks for whom "(attractive) woman" equates to "outsider" to hold exclusionary beliefs and practices.  See also Smiler's comments on the reaction to Aisha Tyler.
[She is] still getting flak about "not knowing anything about games" from E3 2012 into this year, so yeah, gamers have a beef with Aisha Tyler for some unknown reason.

But seriously, what's with this asinine no true scotsman from you Brent?
I'm sure this girl plays games and enjoys them but it's not her Thing.  It's not her hobby.  Take away gaming and she's still the same person, a feminist blogger.
How is it different than:
I'm sure this boy plays games and enjoys them but it's not his Thing.  It's not his hobby.  Take away gaming and he's still the same person, a QA lead.
And if it somehow were, why is this exactly the kind of subjective criterion that assholes love to move the goalposts for according to their whims?

Anyway, I think I'm gonna be sulky in the corner now. Both about this and about how you haven't finished slogging through your Xenogears LP.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Crouton on August 01, 2013, 10:22:39 PM
Crouton: Holy shit, man, here I was thinking Stupidest Post in This Thread was a legitimately tough competition and you just walked away with it like you never even broke a sweat.

Sora's gone, Guild's gone, 3rd string represent?

I'll ask the same question more politely. Which do you guys think is more sexist? The hostility towards her because she's a girl who doesn't know what she's talking about, or the defensive reaction to support her because she's a girl who doesn't know what she's talking about?

Is sexism a problem in gaming? Absolutely. Does Sarkeesian know her shit? I personally doubt it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Royal☭ on August 01, 2013, 11:31:10 PM
Ocksi manages to make the point I've been trying to make about the last three videos in one goddamn post. Read it, understand it, ban Crouton because he's an idiot.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on August 02, 2013, 12:04:13 AM
Crouton: Holy shit, man, here I was thinking Stupidest Post in This Thread was a legitimately tough competition and you just walked away with it like you never even broke a sweat.

I'll ask the same question more politely. Which do you guys think is more sexist? The hostility towards her because she's a girl who doesn't know what she's talking about, or the defensive reaction to support her because she's a girl who doesn't know what she's talking about?

it's true. just the other day this chick was denying the holocaust and i was like OH MAN SHE'S SO DEFENSELESS IF I DEFEND HER TO HER DETRACTORS SHE WILL BE SO HOT FOR ME
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on August 02, 2013, 01:18:02 AM
Yeah right, Zara. Like your wife would stand for that.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 01:24:08 AM
For real, this "fake geek girl" bullshit has got to go. It's toxic, stupid, and serves no purpose other than to let frightened nerds play at being the bully, rather than the victim.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on August 02, 2013, 02:00:55 AM
I don't think anyone is actually making the fake geek girl claim, just the claim that she isn't a gamer. Those are different things. She might be a gamer, but it doesn't seem like it, and enthusiasts of an stripe don't like being told by outsiders what's wrong with their hobby, and by "don't like" I of course mean "are immediately and actively hostile toward". That's obviously not all of what's going on here, but I think it's part of what's raising the hackles of people who otherwise would be sympathetic, or just not care.

I, for my part, have decided to shift back to not caring, at least about her. The drama has forever destroyed whatever she was trying to accomplish with these videos, and you can tell because almost no one, on either side, is actually talking about the content of the videos anymore. Really, thinking about it, I feel like this was inevitable. No one could have lived up to the hype.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 02:37:15 AM
Not sure where you guys are getting the "fake geek girl" nonsense from Brent's post.

Fake Geek Girl usually refers to the idea of poser girls 'slumming' it in a community with low average self-esteem, in order to attract more attention than they normally would. The type of attention that Sarkeesian is looking for is completely different than that.

This really is a case of not all forms of attention being the same, so lumping all forms of attention-seeking together is just silly.

EDIT: Also what Bal just said.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 02:45:59 AM
I'm sure this girl plays games and enjoys them but it's not her Thing.  It's not her hobby.  Take away gaming and she's still the same person, a feminist blogger.
How is it different than:
I'm sure this boy plays games and enjoys them but it's not his Thing.  It's not his hobby.  Take away gaming and he's still the same person, a QA lead.

It isn't, you self-congratulating dickhead.

It doesn't matter if she's male, female, white, black, American, Japanese, Democrat, Republic, big-endian, or little-endian.

That's the whole point.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 02:46:46 AM
I don't think anyone is actually making the fake geek girl claim, just the claim that she isn't a gamer. Those are different things. She might be a gamer, but it doesn't seem like it.

No, those are not different things at all. "Fake geek girl" is not some magic spell that requires those specific words to be invoked, and casting doubts on whether someone is a gamer just because they haven't met some arbitrary standard, or because they don't "seem" like a gamer, is a huge part of the problem. No one should be expected to prove that they are a gamer, or a geek, or part of any other voluntary enthusiast community, and no one should be allowed to set themselves up as gatekeepers to these communities, or subject others to increased scrutiny based entirely on irrelevant factors like gender. That's what the "fake geek girl" nonsense is all about.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 02:50:59 AM
No, bullshit.  I have every right to tell some fly-by-night activist to fuck right the hell off if he or she tries to tell me what I'm doing wrong with my time.  I don't care if it's Jack Thompson or Anita Sarkeesian.  It's rude as hell.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 02:53:35 AM
Again, you're operating on the assumption that she doesn't play and enjoy videogames, that she's just some outsider poser type shoving herself into a discussion that doesn't involve her...based on what, exactly?

And nobody's running around going, "this is bad and you should feel bad for enjoying it!". It's not some personal attack on you or the things you enjoy. I think that's part of the problem, that people seem to think this criticism of sexism in games is an attack on the quality of the games, or the people making/playing them, but it's not.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 02:58:14 AM
Also:

 

It doesn't matter if she's male, female, white, black, American, Japanese, Democrat, Republic, big-endian, or little-endian.

That's the whole point.

It shouldn't, but if you honestly think it doesn't(not referring to you personally, but in the larger conversation/culture) you haven't been paying attention.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 03:01:02 AM
Again, you're operating on the assumption that she doesn't play and enjoy videogames, that she's just some outsider poser type shoving herself into a discussion that doesn't involve her...based on what, exactly?

I figured it was based on the fact that she is actually documenting herself speaking about games in a way that makes it clear she hasn't actually played some or even most of the games she's speaking about.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 03:04:33 AM
Still not sure how that means she's "not a gamer". In fact, if making assumptions based on games we haven't actually played makes one not a gamer, I'd say pretty much every single one of us is guilty of that.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 03:05:28 AM
Based on the fact that she's "studying" gamer culture like some sort of Gorilla in the Mist hero.  Her knowledge of the topic is based on some experience but mostly on Wikipedia, and it's shown again and again and again and again, to the point of where Bal is at - her message doesn't fucking matter any more.  She can't communicate it to her audience in a way that doesn't sound foreign and strange.  The topic is about her now, not damsels in distress, which was, within our little society, already something we were concerning ourselves about before she crash-landed on the scene and made it Anita's Issue.

All I want right now is to find someone who can dispel that level of extra contention, because I'm sure there's probably more than 50% of chucklefucks out there who would still be reacting the same way, and it would be very nice to isolate them from the disgruntled lifers who would have reacted with same dismissal if it had come from Bruce Sarkeesian.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Joxam on August 02, 2013, 03:11:18 AM
I think the way you should be looking at this ted is that she presented herself in a way that made people from even this fairly well adjust group of gamers believe that she was an outsider looking in. Perhaps you believe she isn't, perhaps she ACTUALLY isn't, that doesn't matter if the way she presented herself doesn't illustrate that properly. At most she's not a girl gamer, which is debatable, at the very least her writing and video editing skills are called into question for not achieving the desired argument.

All that being said you have to realize why WE don't think this video series does enough to cause any real 'change'. We ARE a fairly well adjust group of gamers, all our faults taken into account. The bar is set considerably higher for most other communities or gamers out there.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 03:11:30 AM
Anita Sarkeesian as Sir John Mandeville.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 03:13:33 AM
I think the way you should be looking at this ted is that she presented herself in a way that made people from even this fairly well adjust group of gamers believe that she was an outsider looking in.

Okay, yes, that's a lot more fair.  She might BE one of us*, but she presents herself as this detached scholar, and that was the first and last mistake.

* A part of me hopes she really is and is capable of learning from all this, but observation suggests probably not and very probably not.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 03:15:25 AM
We got the commentator we deserve, but not the one we need.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 03:15:49 AM
Fuck, you're right.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on August 02, 2013, 03:18:12 AM
We got the commentator we deserve, but not the one we need.

I don't feel like I deserved someone who cannot, for a wide variety of reasons, communicate her point to anyone who wasn't already in agreement.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 03:19:38 AM
...should I have slapped together a crappy gif of Anita riding off on the Batpod, pursued by angry nerds, just to drive home the fact that I was making a joke?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on August 02, 2013, 03:21:40 AM
That would have been much more obviously a joke.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 03:29:59 AM
That also would have been awesome.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 03:46:37 AM
Lack of photoshop/gif making skills: my life, my struggle.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on August 02, 2013, 04:10:06 AM
I kind of agree that the topic of conversation has shifted away from whatever her message is. Especially considering...
her message doesn't fucking matter any more... not damsels in distress
her message isn't about damsels in distress, it's been to say, "HEY PEEPS! This shit is pretty weird and insular and problematic!"

All I want right now is to find someone who can dispel that level of extra contention... same dismissal if it had come from Bruce Sarkeesian.
At this time, the person who dispels that level of extra contention is a hypothetical Rule 63 Sarkeesian (who may also moonlight as the BatMan?). When you previously suggested Sarkeesian's "academic" tone (airquotes because I am not sure what tone she accomplishes) was the problem your go-to replacement for Sarkeesian was Aisha Tyler (who does have a hell of a lot more charisma).

I don't know how many people are offended by or dismissing these videos because of the factual errors (most of which I'm willing to chalk up to not wanting to take a diversion to talk about the one or two examples where someone did something that challenged the trope and ruin the flow) of Sarkeesian's videos. But if those people are going to dismiss problems of sexism or what's problematic in these tropes (knowledge of which is basically Don't be an Asshole to Others 204) because of irrelevant factual errors they're doing the work of sexists even if they aren't sexist themselves. They're basically saying remembering the Zelda CDi games is more important than trying to have a more inclusive and equal community.

But yeah...
I'm sure there's probably more than 50% of chucklefucks out there who would still be reacting the same way
I'm not so optimistic, but I'm not sure how to test this now that FemFreq has done this thing.

EDIT:
Added lines and missing words.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on August 02, 2013, 05:04:13 AM
Well hell, I'm all for women's equality and I think ass-and-titties as a selling point for media is distasteful and I'm actually embarrassed of how flat and uninteresting I am beyond being a "gamer". Somebody send me tens of thousands of dollars on Kickstarter and we'll see if my video series goes over better.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 05:45:36 AM
As long as you do it in the form of an LP.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 05:53:18 AM
Hello boys and girls!  Today we're fighting the patriarchy!
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 06:02:52 AM
I could see that actually being genuinely funny if done right. If you had some female Jonathan Swift-calibre game designer to create it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Rico on August 02, 2013, 07:47:52 AM
... "not a gamer"...
"Not a gamer" is among the more charitable responses to this series. Consider this:
Given the assumption that sexism is pervasive in video games, a feminist gamer ought to be able to readily identify many accurate examples of sexism.
Someone who identifies as a feminist gamer making a series to point out this pervasive sexism in video games has struggled to come up with accurate examples of sexism.
Therefore: Sexism is not pervasive in video games. This is almost certainly false, but it's a decent chain of reasoning.
Therefore: She is not a gamer. Quite possible. Many people seem to agree with this (see the many people who have tried to point out that her craptacular selection of examples does not invalidate her broader point)
et cetera
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 08:28:22 AM
Yes. The broad point of "Sexism exists in an institutionalized level in video games" is entirely true. No one is debating this.
"Anita Sarlacc is a terrible person to talk about this" is what I and many others believe, because "Anita Subatomic does not do research on her topic." Consider above, where I pointed out that an analysis of her thesis gave the feeling of "She decides what she wants to 'prove', and then writes everything to fit it." And note how such a methodology is being applied in this video series.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on August 02, 2013, 08:29:29 AM
Well hell, I'm all for women's equality and I think ass-and-titties as a selling point for media is distasteful and I'm actually embarrassed of how flat and uninteresting I am beyond being a "gamer". Somebody send me tens of thousands of dollars on Kickstarter and we'll see if my video series goes over better.

I thought about it and it'd still go over like a lead balloon, since I'm not up to snuff on all the recent goings-on and still haven't played most of the must-have games from the last generation or two.

I'm the one thing Real Gamers hate more than women: a filthy casual.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 08:34:58 AM
Most "Real Gamers" (using the term as a pejorative here) equate women with casual gamers; they're one in the same, to them.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 08:36:43 AM
Lyrai: I agree with you on the larger point that Anita Sarkeezian probably isn't the best suited person to be leading this discussion, but making fun of someone's last name isn't helping your case. At best, it's kind of childish, and at worst, it could be taken as "lol she's got a foreign-sounding name".
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 08:38:19 AM
I'm not making fun of it, I just can't spell it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 08:38:32 AM
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but people are acting like these three videos are the entirety of the series, but isn't this just the first chunk?

I'm not making fun of it, I just can't spell it.

That would be a valid excuse if her name weren't literally all over this discussion, including this very thread.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 08:42:45 AM
I put as much care into spelling Anita's last name right as she does researching the games in her videos.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Ted Belmont on August 02, 2013, 08:43:19 AM
So...childish it is, then. Okay.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 08:56:49 AM
Consider me mildly peeved that a topic I personally have a lot of investment in is getting shat all over because the current spokesperson for it is completely fucking it up.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 09:09:48 AM
Am I a terrible person for thinking that "Anita Sarlacc" was actually sort if funny?

At least nobody's done Anita Dispensaheah yet.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 10:46:26 AM
Consider me mildly peeved that a topic I personally have a lot of investment in is getting shat all over because the current spokesperson for it is completely fucking it up.

A self-imposed spokes(woman).
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: TA on August 02, 2013, 10:51:05 AM
Consider me mildly peeved that a topic I personally have a lot of investment in is getting shat all over because the current spokesperson for it is completely fucking it up.

It's like this.  Remember how Batman and Robin was really awful, and it basically killed the Batman movie franchise for seven years?  Remember how Superman Returns was overblown bullshit, and it basically killed the Superman movie franchise for seven years?  Remember how the Green Lantern movie was basically gibberish overloaded with bad CGI, so now it's probably going to be 2018 before anyone even bothers to make any Green Lantern movie again, let alone a good one?

The concern Lyrai is expressing here, if I'm reading it right, is that Sarkeesian is screwing the pooch so badly, and so blindly, that she's threatening to do the same thing to feminist critiques of video games.  This isn't just a disastrous clusterfuck, it's ruining good points by trying to make them and bombing.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Rico on August 02, 2013, 11:21:27 AM
I'm not making fun of it, I just can't spell it.
That would be a valid excuse if her name weren't literally all over this discussion, including this very thread.
Quote from: Ted Belmont
Lyrai: I agree with you on the larger point that Anita SarkeeZian....

*cough*
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Smiler on August 02, 2013, 11:36:45 AM
Uh I don't think DC movie franchises are very similar to the feminist movement.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 11:40:16 AM
TA is close to one of the reasons why I'm angry. Each time someone steals the spotlight and fucks it up, that's another good chunk of time before someone decides to brave the already hostile enough environment to try and push back.

Sargasso had a TREMENDOUS opportunity when the entire good side of the internet went "The fuck, trolls?" and dumped a truckload of money on her. And her response was to light it on fire. So now when someone else comes along to try and do it right, there's going to be all the trolling, with a lot less of the "Hey stop it, she wants to do something good." See also that kickstarter of SEND MY 8 YEAR OLD TO GAME CAMP BECAUSE BOYS TOLD HER SHE COULDN'T and it ended up being a huge scam, run by a scammer, who had scammed before.

Each time it gets fucked up, the goal gets pushed further and further away. If not anger, then depression overtakes me. I just want to enjoy the same shit you guys do without feeling creeped out, all right?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 11:43:53 AM
Looking back on it I don't think the setback is quite as bad as I had feared at first.  It is a setback - people like to say "Well at least she got people talking about it" and that's true enough, but those people are talking about it and coming to the conclusion that it's not a serious issue and let's not talk about it any more - but it's definitely fixable, even recoverable in a positive way.  The main concern is that the people who could turn it into a positive aren't going to want to because, well, they don't want to be in the position that Anita's in, whatever way they might define that.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: TA on August 02, 2013, 11:45:41 AM
Uh I don't think DC movie franchises are very similar to the feminist movement.

Popular reception is popular reception wherever you go.

Looking back on it I don't think the setback is quite as bad as I had feared at first.  It is a setback - people like to say "Well at least she got people talking about it" and that's true enough, but those people are talking about it and coming to the conclusion that it's not a serious issue and let's not talk about it any more - but it's definitely fixable, even recoverable in a positive way.  The main concern is that the people who could turn it into a positive aren't going to want to because, well, they don't want to be in the position that Anita's in, whatever way they might define that.

See how it is once the other eight or nine videos come out.  It's not like she's gonna stop doing everything wrong.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 11:48:03 AM
Which situation was Sargasso one again?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 11:49:13 AM
See how it is once the other eight or nine videos come out.  It's not like she's gonna stop doing everything wrong.

She's not even doing 99% of everything wrong.  Like I said, she could have zero arguable points in her videos and she'd still get chased out with pitchforks.  She could be Kryssstal and get chased out with pitchforks too, but at that point we'd have a much better idea why.  Maybe.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on August 02, 2013, 11:51:07 AM
Looking back on it I don't think the setback is quite as bad as I had feared at first.  It is a setback - people like to say "Well at least she got people talking about it" and that's true enough, but those people are talking about it and coming to the conclusion that it's not a serious issue and let's not talk about it any more - but it's definitely fixable, even recoverable in a positive way.

Agreed.  At the very worst, she's provided a series of object examples of pitfalls to avoid.

The main concern is that the people who could turn it into a positive aren't going to want to because, well, they don't want to be in the position that Anita's in, whatever way they might define that.

But I think the best examples of people who are willing to fight this fight -- your Aisha Tylers, your Gail Simones, your presumably thousands upon thousands of people who I've never heard of -- do not give a fuck about that, or even see it as a challenge.

Motherfucker, ALL of them.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 11:54:06 AM
Which situation was Sargasso one again?

When Anita started the kickstarter, it got swarmed with Redditors and their ilk, complete with "fuckin whore" and the like. It helped increase the money it was getting several hundredfold.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 11:57:26 AM
Agreed.  At the very worst, she's provided a series of object examples of pitfalls to avoid.

I'd hesitate to actually congratulate someone for failing in an illuminating manner, but it does actually seem like a net positive when you put it that way.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on August 02, 2013, 11:57:57 AM
See also: Sigmund Freud.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 02, 2013, 12:49:46 PM
Which situation was Sargasso one again?

When Anita started the kickstarter, it got swarmed with Redditors and their ilk, complete with "fuckin whore" and the like. It helped increase the money it was getting several hundredfold.

Oh. That I know. I don't know what "Sargasso" referred to specifically. I thought for a second that it referred to some other woman.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on August 02, 2013, 01:01:52 PM
Ah, normality has been restored.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on August 02, 2013, 01:12:03 PM
You want alternatives? I'll give you alternatives.

Cara Ellison and John Walker (and the others, but mainly them) over at Rock Paper Shotgun (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/) often write insightful stuff about this topic and cover relevant issues, but it's unfair comparing anybody to RPS (the only game news site that does actual journalism sometimes instead of never). They're not doing huge academic treatments or anything but it's a common theme of their articles.

The meta-blog Critical Distance (http://www.critical-distance.com/) updates once a week with links to good game writing, with a particular eye for social issues, which means the portrayal of women in games and the prevalence of sexism among its producers and consumers is a frequent topic. Following links there might lead you to some good stuff.

That's just a couple. You could also prove how cool you are by thinking about this on your own.

----------------------------

My initial appraisal of Sarkeesian was that TV Tropes-level commentary, simply enumerating as many instances as possible of incidents that are germane to the normalization of problematic portrayals of women in games, wasn't going to cut the mustard for me. I mean, look, it's right there in the title. But I figured that, even if I couldn't, there were still people out there still ignorant enough to learn something from such a superficial treatment.

I think that you don't need to have actually played a game in order to just mark it on a thematically tone-deaf Checklist of Trope Adherence. For instance, I think it is relevant to point out that Eversion makes use of save-the-princess imagery: that Nehema is the goal, even though by the fiction of the game Zee Tee is just going to visit her. The next question to ask would be "So what?" which has several potentially interesting answers that there's apparently no room for in Tropes Versus Women.

On the other hand, plagiarism is a serious offense. Conversations about plagiarism are necessarily about the plagiarist, because the whole point is that the research ostensibly stands on its own. Misrepresenting one's research is the ultimate credibility-destroyer.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on August 02, 2013, 10:48:54 PM
Eversion makes use of save-the-princess imagery: that Nehema is the goal, even though by the fiction of the game Zee Tee is just going to visit her.
Given that the forms Nehema takes are presented as flower people (which are hermaphroditic) and spoiler[spoiler]terrifying tooth and tentacle monsters[/spoiler] the only stuff that's actually "gendered" about them is that Nehema wears a dress?
I'm just saying, that it's abstract tot he point where Zara could probably claim they're both from hermaphroditic species and I'd think, "Yeah it is fucked up that the trope is so pervasive that whenever I see a rescuer and a rescuee I assign male and female sex to them (respectively)." I might even believe it if I didn't know any better.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on August 02, 2013, 11:05:35 PM
If I recall correctly, the joke was that the female of the species always has a humanoid shape.

see: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanoidFemaleAnimal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanoidFemaleAnimal)

But sarcasm is dead.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on August 02, 2013, 11:23:18 PM
On the Steam store page, it says, "The Princess of the Flower Kingdom has vanished! She was taken by the Ghulibas of the north, and it is up to brave Zee Tee to rescue her. On his quest, he - and you - will discover the hidden lands behind the peaceful kingdom, and come face to face with secrets that will set you on edge!"

So even if that's outdated or deliberately incorrect, and even if the dress weren't a big enough giveaway, we're still dealing with clear evocation of the woman-as-objective motif. (There are interesting things to say about what's done with that motif in the particular case of Eversion, and I'd happily discuss them, but maybe not in this thread, and also Zara may have to admit that he is dead.) The socially conscientious benefit from acknowledging its prevalence, even if that's as far as they go.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 03, 2013, 12:07:44 AM
You know, I know TV Tropes is generally horrible, but the page Men are generic, Women are special (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MenAreGenericWomenAreSpecial) page actually has a lot of little references that show just how deep and how far back this phenomenon goes.

In a way it reminds us all that this is about more than just protagonists in video games.

Things like "A smiley face is recognised as male by default, and has to be given female features to be seen as female". Whats funny is that that's true even in places that have no discriminatory intent and no great history of discrimination. Look at Legos. Up until recent years Lego was pretty damned gender neutral* and all minifigs had plain smiley faces. Yet the same phenomenon holds up there: You wouldn't recognise a minifig as female unless it had the "woman hair". This wasn't something imposed by evil patriarchical Danes, it's a deeply rooted phenomenon.

It raises the question of how deep those tendencies go and whether or not they can ever be fully overcome. Not that that means we shouldn't try for more parity in various forms of media. The points raised about unequal treatment are for the most part just and relevent. But how much are we fighting against cues and triggers shaped in our brains not by some culture of patriarchy but by actual gender-specific biology?

That's not meant to be a leading question. I think we as a species really don't have the answer to that question yet. The idea of gender equilibrium is something relatively new - for both genders - and not enough time has yet passed for there to be much proper research on gender as it relates to brain chemistry and vice-versa.

* Unless maybe you want to argue that "building toys are inherently male" but I recall marketing and catalogues throughout the 70's, 80's, and 90's that always had girls. Certainly I don't think the manufacturer tried to push gender roles at all until maybe the late 80's, probably first in the medieval line. Nowadays of course they have all kinds of male and female-specific heads.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on August 03, 2013, 12:58:54 AM
Joke: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanoidFemaleAnimal (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumanoidFemaleAnimal)
God dammit. You've made me lose another hour of my life to TVTropes.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on August 03, 2013, 01:18:35 AM
Things like "A smiley face is recognised as male by default, and has to be given female features to be seen as female".

This doesn't stand much of a chance of going anywhere until we get to a point where actual human females will be recognized as female without 'adding female features'. Such as make-up, stylized hair and big, hooped earrings.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 03, 2013, 03:18:40 AM
Things like "A smiley face is recognised as male by default, and has to be given female features to be seen as female".

This doesn't stand much of a chance of going anywhere until we get to a point where actual human females will be recognized as female without 'adding female features'. Such as make-up, stylized hair and big, hooped earrings.

One of the most interesting things about gender is that males and females actually look much closer to each other than is generally credited, especially around the face and that in regular society, BOTH genders do things that specifically enhance the few distinguishing facial features between the two.

This is at least partially out of a simple practial need for clear communication and not inherently as any sort of dominance code. Modern discussions on gender have added additional factors that complicate the binary historical norms, but a large proportion of people still feels the need for clear and instant visual recognition, even on a non-sexual level.

While certain markers are changable over time through learned social behaviours or are even just the fashions of the day (e.g. those big ole' hoop earings or whalebone corsets. Or men with long flowing hair and tights that show their calves) I expect that's not just a purely social construct and that there are biological components to such behaviour that transcend most societies (e.g. feminine eyes, a feminine jawline, or male facial hair).
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on August 03, 2013, 03:49:15 AM
Certainly I don't think the manufacturer tried to push gender roles at all until maybe the late 80's

Sets of 1970: Steam locomotive, front-end loader, castle, car, truck, truck, tow truck, fire truck, fire station, jumbo jet, ambulance.
Sets of 1975: Family, Hospital, Farm, Windmill, car car car car car wild west space airplane train rescue helicopter, dragster that turns into tractor. Figures either have hats, or girl hair. I sincerely can't tell if the kids in the box are male or female.
Sets of 1980: car car car car train train train train space, grocery store, town square, nursery school, farm, and then a bizarre set of lego rings and picture frame with mirror.

So basically, Lego until 1980 would appeal to girls that liked cars, until the kids themselves shamed them into hating it.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on August 03, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
Honestly unsure if you're being sarcastic with that last line?

Well, I was just going by my childhood for that footnote. I don't remember thinking of Lego as a "boys" toy and the company copy on the issue did seem to have both girls and boys (next year's Lego catalogue was one of the biggest highlights of my life, for like 10 years).

I would not of course recall any actual sets from the 70's AT THE TIME, given I was only 1 year old during that decade, but I did later acquire a handful of the older sets, so I did have some experience of them.

Anyway, the Lego thing is just a footnote.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on August 04, 2013, 01:59:26 AM
Tangentially related to the subject at hand: Boob Jam (http://theboobjam.com/). The challenge: Design a game about boobs in any other context than as fetish objects for straight men to drool over.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Roger on August 05, 2013, 02:50:21 PM
Luckily, Japan turned in their entry twelve years ago. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stretch_Panic)  :whoops:
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on September 16, 2013, 01:33:39 AM
every day is more retarded than the last

http://sarkeesiancanbestopped.tumblr.com/ (http://sarkeesiancanbestopped.tumblr.com/)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on September 16, 2013, 01:38:23 AM
hahahahahahahahaha
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mothra on September 16, 2013, 02:29:42 AM
pfffthahahahaha
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on September 16, 2013, 02:50:42 AM
She'll never stoooop

She wants seeeeexual cultural roles to be recognized
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: TA on September 16, 2013, 10:29:30 AM
So, the Gamespot review for GTA 5 was written by a woman, mentions the game is a bit misogynistic - in that there are basically zero female characters, and what depictions exist are in the format of billboards for perfume so you can "smell like a bitch" and the like - and gave it a 9/10.  The internet is reacting predictably.  I thought this was a nice one, from the reviewer's twitter feed:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BUTJDh0CEAAf0m9.jpg:large)

We're still on day zero, though, so this one's gonna get worse before it gets better.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on September 16, 2013, 10:43:47 AM
itt gamers compete with racists against brown miss america for who is the bigger ignorant shithead
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on September 16, 2013, 10:47:02 AM
itt we should not diminish the large intersection of these two sets
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on September 16, 2013, 10:49:08 AM
"not all gamers are racist, and not all gamers are women-hating fuckshits, but they're frequently both"
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on September 16, 2013, 11:00:37 AM
Man, I wish I'd been aware of all this when the local news interviewed me at GameStop earlier today about the controversy surrounding GTA. I've been trotting out the old "violent tendencies and violent media are demonstrably correlatable but no evidence of causation exists" arguments, and now I'm going to look out of touch!
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on September 16, 2013, 11:01:23 AM
Shhh, don't tell anybody that a very male writer said the exact same thing in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/arts/video-games/grand-theft-auto-v-is-a-return-to-the-comedy-of-violence.html).

Also Newbie if they didn't bother to correct you I get the feeling you gave them the exact soundbite they were looking for.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Kazz on September 16, 2013, 11:33:22 AM
Why would Gamespot care if you cancelled your GTAV order?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on September 16, 2013, 11:45:14 AM
I'm just gonna go ahead and assume any game where you can fuck a hooker, shoot her, and then run her over with a motorcycle to get your money back is a tad, you know.

Purfume ads or no.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Disposable Ninja on September 16, 2013, 11:47:27 AM
Friday why would you need to run her over when you already shot her?

That's just overkill.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Friday on September 16, 2013, 11:49:46 AM
I like to make sure
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Beat Bandit on September 16, 2013, 12:21:23 PM
Are there really no gay hookers yet? That is pretty sexist.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on September 16, 2013, 12:26:45 PM
Shhh, don't tell anybody that a very male writer said the exact same thing in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/arts/video-games/grand-theft-auto-v-is-a-return-to-the-comedy-of-violence.html).
Quote
“Movies are about telling the same lies over and over again,” Michael says at one point. “You know, good beats evil, things happen for a reason, attractive people are interesting.”

Video games tell their own lies to their players: you’re powerful, you’re smart, you’re important, your problems can be solved if you just keep trying. And Grand Theft Auto V is one of the most beautiful, seductive lies yet uttered by our youngest creative medium.

Heh.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: jsnlxndrlv on September 16, 2013, 02:34:10 PM
Turns out I was worried about nothing; the local piece is pretty much just a view of the situation from 10,000 feet. The issues particular to GTAV aren't even mentioned. About the worst thing that came of it for me was that apparently transcription of my speech uses far fewer commas than I would have, were I doing it myself.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on September 16, 2013, 02:38:11 PM
"In this GTA V the protagonist eats shoots and leaves."

I think the big issue here is that GTA looks like it's running behind the Saint's Row series in its swing back to cartoony fun, and that series has not only let you play a female character for the past 3 installments, it also has major female characters as usually your most competent lieutenants but please please please please please do not tell Anita Sarkeesian how prone they all are to being abducted.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bal on September 16, 2013, 04:08:53 PM
That's because GTA ISN'T swinging back to cartoony fun, and is sticking with (mostly) serious crime drama plots. The player character isn't some interchangeable psychopath just doing whatever he's told, and frankly that's been more and more the case since Vice City. If you would like to customize a character in GTA V, feel free to make use of the gigantic online mode that will be launching on October 1st that allows you to make any kind of character, male of female, that you like.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on September 16, 2013, 06:03:41 PM
Why would Gamespot care if you cancelled your GTAV order?
Probably this person doesn't know that Gamespot and Gamestop are two different companies or even two different words.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Stush on September 16, 2013, 07:03:06 PM
Why would Gamespot care if you cancelled your GTAV order?
Probably this person doesn't know that Gamespot and Gamestop are two different companies or even two different words.
I nearly choked on a tim tam when I read this. Funniest thing i've seen today.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on September 19, 2013, 01:49:52 AM
I was thinking they were trying to get Rockstar to go all Kane and Lynch (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/11/30/) on the review.

Because, you know.  A couple of angry guys in a comments thread are going to make GTA5 sell poorly.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Pacobird on September 19, 2013, 08:25:03 AM
So, the Gamespot review for GTA 5 was written by a woman, mentions the game is a bit misogynistic - in that there are basically zero female characters, and what depictions exist are in the format of billboards for perfume so you can "smell like a bitch" and the like - and gave it a 9/10.  The internet is reacting predictably.  I thought this was a nice one, from the reviewer's twitter feed:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BUTJDh0CEAAf0m9.jpg:large)

We're still on day zero, though, so this one's gonna get worse before it gets better.

Vaguely ironic monniker, there
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: R^2 on September 20, 2013, 03:58:24 PM
You need a good, dark valkirye bread if you're going to make a decent Nordic-style Rjuben sandwich.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Büge on November 19, 2013, 11:54:21 PM
Beep beep

Ms. Male Character - Tropes vs Women in Video Games (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqYLfm1rWA#ws)
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Zaratustra on November 20, 2013, 02:40:53 AM
is there any game where you can equip a ribbon on a character to make them female?

But I think she picked good examples. I mean, on Pinterest there's a "gender identifiers" tag that seems to state Flora's dress from Professor Layton is a "gender signifier". In a game where the protagonist wears a top hat unironically.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Pacobird on November 20, 2013, 09:51:41 AM
Can't watch the video but JRPGs have a long history of gender-based armor/accessories and it's almost always explicitly for women.  Dragon Quest is especially bad, where the only non-class restrictions are on stuff like dresses and hairpins; there are no male-only equips.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Bongo Bill on November 20, 2013, 12:27:59 PM
Can't watch the video but JRPGs have a long history of gender-based armor/accessories and it's almost always explicitly for women.  Dragon Quest is especially bad, where the only non-class restrictions are on stuff like dresses and hairpins; there are no male-only equips.
Dragon Quest has male-only equipment. There's not much of it, but it is there. Things like boxers. There's more in 9, which has lots of clothes.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Thad on November 20, 2013, 02:51:25 PM
Xenoblade is friggin' hilarious in how the same piece of armor looks on different characters.  Put it on the burly dude and it's huge and spiky; put it on a lady and it's a thong now.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: on November 20, 2013, 03:07:18 PM
Maybe the spikes are just in a different location that you can't see.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Brentai on November 20, 2013, 03:32:13 PM
Maybe the spikes are-

Did... did Lyrai just beat me to the penetration joke?
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Classic on November 20, 2013, 06:23:49 PM
She really stuck it too.
Title: Re: Social Issues in Games
Post by: Mongrel on December 03, 2013, 11:30:54 AM
http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed (http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed)