Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bal]

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.

[patito]

I liked where brentai was taking this conversation, the economics of the video not so much.

[Bal]

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.

[Classic]

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?

[Bongo Bill]

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.

[Royal☭]

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?

[François]

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.

[Bal]

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.

[Royal☭]

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.

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?

[Bal]

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.

[Royal☭]

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.

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.

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.

[Büge]

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.

[Bal]

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.  That would at least amuse me personally.

[Rico]

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.

[Royal☭]

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.

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.  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.

[Thad]

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.

[Royal☭]

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.

[Brentai]

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.

[Büge]

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.

[Brentai]

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.