Women as Background Decoration: Part 1 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games - General

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;45131267]You could just, you know, not do those things. I play open world games all the time and never massacre women, or men, when I am fucking around. Believe it or not but you can use self control and not be a sociopath while playing. Look, you're doing it right now.[/QUOTE] I've played games like Fallout 3 and the first 2 Mass Effects (if those two count), I'm perfectly aware it's possible to not always do bad stuff (I always stuck to the paragon/"good guy" routes/objectives) and that it's the thing about open-world games, precisely I'm trying to get into more of them to not stay with that fear forever, but still, I'm not keen on GTA-styled games for those reasons.

[QUOTE=Jorori;45131597]I've played games like Fallout 3 and the first 2 Mass Effects (if those two count), I'm perfectly aware it's possible to not always do bad stuff (I always stuck to the paragon/"good guy" routes/objectives) and that it's the thing about open-world games, precisely I'm trying to get into more of them to not stay with that fear forever, but still, I'm not keen on GTA-styled games for those reasons.[/QUOTE] Sleeping Dogs would probably be a good game for you, since you're an undercover cop and you actually get rewarded for not being a crazy murderer.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45130844]I wish Anita Sark had done something like release drafts of the videos internally for Kickstarter backers, in order to gather feedback between the producers and the audience to get a much more cohesive and complete end product. It's cool that the series even exists and it makes some good points — it's a decent 101 to issues in video games — but it's sad how much more effective it could have been because some of the game-specific arguments really feel oversimplified...[/QUOTE] She nitpicks too much and widely misinterpretes some of the examples she mentions, plus all of the times where she actively contradicts herself by showing something that counters her own point. There's also the fact that these videos aren't an actual analysis or a study of any kind, it's a woman ranting about one issue and judging an entire medium on them. Anita Sarkeesian is too full of herself and simply not competent enough to produce a series of analytic videos on sexism is video games. [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] There's also the fact she has admittedly not played a wide majority of the games she mentions. Doing a retrospective/analysis on an entire genre requires a really good knowledge of games with that theme, and you can't just pick up that knowledge in less than a year no matter how big the kickstarter.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45132858]She nitpicks too much and widely misinterpretes some of the examples she mentions, plus all of the times where she actively contradicts herself by showing something that counters her own point. There's also the fact that these videos aren't an actual analysis or a study of any kind, it's a woman ranting about one issue and judging an entire medium on them. Anita Sarkeesian is too full of herself and simply not competent enough to produce a series of analytic videos on sexism is video games. [/QUOTE] Or maybe, just [I]maybe[/I], gamers are universally a vile bunch who wallow in the maggot-ridden vomit-speckled [B]dogshit[/B] that 99.9% of this medium consists of? Maybe they need to be called out and shamed for it? The more I think about it, the more I think that Ebert and Thompson might have had a good point about this medium having no artistic merit whatsoever. Film proved its artistic worth within a decade or two of its creation. I can't say the same for video games thanks to them being made by and for manchildren.

[QUOTE=LurkyLurker;45133135]Or maybe, just [I]maybe[/I], gamers are universally a vile bunch who wallow in the maggot-ridden vomit-speckled [B]dogshit[/B] that 99.9% of this medium consists of? Maybe they need to be called out and shamed for it? The more I think about it, the more I think that Ebert and Thompson might have had a good point about this medium having no artistic merit whatsoever. Film proved its artistic worth within a decade or two of its creation. I can't say the same for video games thanks to them being made by and for manchildren.[/QUOTE] Maybe you need to not argue the way you do. You're factually wrong when it comes to video games having not proved themselves, but it's not really worth arguing with you. You have seriously said it's impossible to be racist against white men, whilst being racist towards white men, I don't feel like you're a person who can actually manage to have these discussions in a civil, or intelligent manner at this point. You're wrong for bringing up film having proved itself in that time frame as well. Did Birth of A Nation "Prove" film was art? Did the various other films of similar ilk do so either?

[QUOTE=LurkyLurker;45133135]Or maybe, just [I]maybe[/I], gamers are universally a vile bunch who wallow in the maggot-ridden vomit-speckled [B]dogshit[/B] that 99.9% of this medium consists of? Maybe they need to be called out and shamed for it? The more I think about it, the more I think that Ebert and Thompson might have had a good point about this medium having no artistic merit whatsoever. Film proved its artistic worth within a decade or two of its creation. I can't say the same for video games thanks to them being made by and for manchildren.[/QUOTE] So, by your logic, games MUST be art. Just like there are games made by and for manchildren, there are also movies that should never see the light of day. You're doing the same as any feminist. Generalizing everything and everyone in the same way.

[QUOTE=LurkyLurker;45133135]Or maybe, just [I]maybe[/I], gamers are universally a vile bunch who wallow in the maggot-ridden vomit-speckled [B]dogshit[/B] that 99.9% of this medium consists of? Maybe they need to be called out and shamed for it? The more I think about it, the more I think that Ebert and Thompson might have had a good point about this medium having no artistic merit whatsoever. Film proved its artistic worth within a decade or two of its creation. I can't say the same for video games thanks to them being made by and for manchildren.[/QUOTE] Meh nice troll and flame bating attempt bro

[QUOTE=LurkyLurker;45133135]Or maybe, just [I]maybe[/I], gamers are universally a vile bunch who wallow in the maggot-ridden vomit-speckled [B]dogshit[/B] that 99.9% of this medium consists of? Maybe they need to be called out and shamed for it? The more I think about it, the more I think that Ebert and Thompson might have had a good point about this medium having no artistic merit whatsoever. Film proved its artistic worth within a decade or two of its creation. I can't say the same for video games thanks to them being made by and for manchildren.[/QUOTE] There are hundreds, if not thousands of games that would [I]vehemently[/I] disagree with you on that standpoint. Really, how can you have such a negative view of gaming and the people who participate in it? There are so many options and so many developers out there, many of whom do a damn good job.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129176]The moment you take a work of art and say, "this is racist hate speech", you're censoring based on your own personal views. Lets take a look at something that should be cut and dry, shall we? [thumb]http://www.comicsbulletin.com/main/sites/default/files/classic/images/crumb/Image%20No%203.jpg[/thumb] Would you say this is racist enough to be censored? Honest question.[/QUOTE] If you're still stuck up on that censoring video game thing, this ad is not a good parallel. Advertisements give one sided information that viewers are expected to soak up. This one in particular advocates racial stereotypes, racial slurs, and cultures hatred to a certain race. There haven't been any video games where your objective was to target and kill real life race groups. Just think about that for a bit and reread the statement about censoring video games that would [B]incite[/B] hate speech/racism.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;45133484]If you're still stuck up on that censoring video game thing, this ad is not a good parallel. Advertisements give one sided information that viewers are expected to soak up. This one in particular advocates racial stereotypes, racial slurs, and cultures hatred to a certain race. There haven't been any video games where your objective was to target and kill real life race groups. Just think about that for a bit and reread the statement about censoring video games that would [B]incite[/B] hate speech/racism.[/QUOTE] You know that isn't an actual advertisement, right? It's page filler for an underground comic publication. It's a cartoon presented in and around other satirical work. And as I said before, whether or not you think it's advocating anything is wholly up to your interpretation.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45133551]You know that isn't an actual advertisement, right? It's page filler for an underground comic publication. It's a cartoon presented in and around other satirical work. And as I said before, whether or not you think it's advocating anything is wholly up to your interpretation.[/QUOTE] I did not know that and you make a fair point. It really is subjective to the viewer.

[QUOTE=Tetsmega;45133777]I did not know that and you make a fair point. It really is subjective to the viewer.[/QUOTE] I want to point out that I'm not saying nobody should point out or criticize offensive and disgusting things. Racism and sexism are deplorable in all their forms, and should be treated as such. I'm going on a seemingly unrelated diatribe because I far too often hear the sentiment that sexist material is "harmful to society", and that we can't discount the effect of it on culture, etc . . . The problem is you're assuming how any given work is interpreted. I don't know of anyone that's in a position to tell me if I view GTA V as satire or not, much less make that decision for all of society. The statement "media which contains sexist or racist imagery or wording is both inherently sexist or racist and harmful to the culture that consumes it" is a statement built on the assumption that everyone else consumes and interprets media in the exact same way that you do.

I think the problem with Anita is that she's too extreme. I agreed with some of the things in the first part of the video but then she lost me. I also actually enjoyed SOME points she made in her Ms. male character video. I think that there is sexism in the gaming medium and it should be pointed out, but her views are so black and white it only riles people up. She also doesn't seem to even research and play the games thoroughly because as many have pointed out she lacks context with her arguments. I wish there was another face of feminism for gaming. Being an artist striving to become a game developer myself, I want to see more and create variety of female characters.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45134156]I want to point out that I'm not saying nobody should point out or criticize offensive and disgusting things. Racism and sexism are deplorable in all their forms, and should be treated as such. I'm going on a seemingly unrelated diatribe because I far too often hear the sentiment that sexist material is "harmful to society", and that we can't discount the effect of it on culture, etc . . . The problem is you're assuming how any given work is interpreted. I don't know of anyone that's in a position to tell me if I view GTA V as satire or not, much less make that decision for all of society. The statement "media which contains sexist or racist imagery or wording is both inherently sexist or racist and harmful to the culture that consumes it" is a statement built on the assumption that everyone else consumes and interprets media in the exact same way that you do.[/QUOTE] At the same coin I'd say that while we often ignore the intentions of the content creators, their intentions are very important because its the base line of their decision that lead to the final product. So you cannot blame people for not knowing Poe's Law.

There's something I'm wondering there. Should context be taken into account when making criticisms about that? Take Medieval II:Total War for example. You are able to commit genocide on an entire city's population once you take over it. And it can be beneficial, too, as it's a valid strategy to use to curtail city growth. Should it be considered hate speech? If a new installment enabled your empire to take part in triangular trade, would it be branded as racist? Same thing with Medieval: The women of your family are basically heir generators, as that's how they were sadly treated during those times. Is it sexist to depict them as such?

Crusader Kings lets you have children with your own daughter and arrange marriages to strengthen political bonds. Obviously part of the sexist agenda to enforce the patriarchy by reinforcing stereotypes that women in the middle ages were useless and given no rights.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45134892]Crusader Kings lets you have children with your own daughter and arrange marriages to strengthen political bonds. Obviously part of the sexist agenda to enforce the patriarchy by reinforcing stereotypes that women in the middle ages were useless and given no rights.[/QUOTE] Again: the problem isn't including those things. The problem is including those things where they're not needed.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45135051]Again: the problem isn't including those things. The problem is including those things where they're not needed.[/QUOTE] Oh, okay, so if it makes sense in a historical context or a dystopian environment, for example, it's fine? What defines whether it's needed or not, though?

[QUOTE=_Axel;45135128]Oh, okay, so if it makes sense in a historical context or a dystopian environment, for example, it's fine? What defines whether it's needed or not, though?[/QUOTE] Of course that's subjective. But the point of bringing up sexism in videogames isn't to define it in an objective way, it's to make people more aware of what can be generally considered sexist and make it so that people have enough common sense to go "Hey, maybe they ARE portraying women in an inferior way"

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45135051]Again: the problem isn't including those things. The problem is including those things where they're not needed.[/QUOTE] How do you define "When not needed" except in the most subjective of senses

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45135051]Again: the problem isn't including those things. The problem is including those things where they're not needed.[/QUOTE] Except you can't define "not needed" objectively. Most games have whores to make the world feel more believable. GTA V, The Witcher, Metro Last Light, Max Payne 3, The Darkness 2, Dishonored, Hitman, the Fallout Series, and Fable all have prostitutes, so the world feels more believable and complete, because guess what, prostitutes exist in real life, almost every single big city has a prostitution circle. And in the case of fucked up futures like Fallout or Metro, it accentuates the desperate feel of the post apocalyptic world these people live in. In The Darkness 2, Dishonored and Hitman Absolution, there's brothel levels because these make for some really good, well designed and uncomfortable levels to go through. I wouldn't say any of these games [I]need[/I] whores to be believable, but it accentuates the credibility of the universe and it doesn't harm anyone, so who cares. It's also not like these games have exclusively prostitutes for female characters, either.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45135485]How do you define "When not needed" except in the most subjective of senses[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Ganerumo;45138631]Except you can't define "not needed" objectively.[/quote] Yes, and I've already covered this. People don't want sexism to be defined in an objective way (except for a handful of people out there), they want to bring awareness to what may be considered sexist and offensive to the point where developers may want to think twice before adding that content, just like they'd think twice if they were adding something that could easily be considered racist. [quote]Most games have whores to make the world feel more believable. GTA V, The Witcher, Metro Last Light, Max Payne 3, The Darkness 2, Dishonored, Hitman, the Fallout Series, and Fable all have prostitutes, so the world feels more believable and complete, because guess what, prostitutes exist in real life, almost every single big city has a prostitution circle. And in the case of fucked up futures like Fallout or Metro, it accentuates the desperate feel of the post apocalyptic world these people live in. In The Darkness 2, Dishonored and Hitman Absolution, there's brothel levels because these make for some really good, well designed and uncomfortable levels to go through.[/quote] Yes, and again, that's true. But aren't there more things that can be added to give the world a realistic feel? If the point is, like you said yourself, good writing, then isn't it a bit lazy to keep adding brothels and strip clubs to these games? There are many other things you could add to give the same feeling, and yet exotic strippers and prostitues are one of the most overdone cliches in videogames currently. And again, the point isn't to literally censor these things in games, only to bring awareness to why people may not want them and as to why ***in some games*** they may not be needed, in the same way you see tons of people saying that they're tired of certain movie cliches and would rather see movies without them. [quote]I wouldn't say any of these games [I]need[/I] whores to be believable, but it accentuates the credibility of the universe and it doesn't harm anyone, so who cares. It's also not like these games have exclusively prostitutes for female characters, either.[/QUOTE] It doesn't physically harm anyone, but it ***can*** be pretty offensive. There was this one FPS shooter that came out in like 2010 (can't remember what it was called) that portrayed Brazil in a ridiculously insulting way, and that was pretty offensive to me and a lot of other Brazilians who heard about it. And if that game had a couple of other Brazilian characters that weren't being portrayed in that way, the ones that were would still have been offensive.

Was it Mas Payne 3?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45139323]Was it Mas Payne 3?[/QUOTE] not at all, mp3 actually has one of the best portrayals of brazil i've ever seen from american media

[QUOTE=omarfr;45134441]I think the problem with Anita is that she's too extreme. I agreed with some of the things in the first part of the video but then she lost me. I also actually enjoyed SOME points she made in her Ms. male character video. I think that there is sexism in the gaming medium and it should be pointed out, but her views are so black and white it only riles people up. She also doesn't seem to even research and play the games thoroughly because as many have pointed out she lacks context with her arguments. I wish there was another face of feminism for gaming. Being an artist striving to become a game developer myself, I want to see more and create variety of female characters.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if she is "extreme" necessarily, she just happens to choose specific examles of games that stretch her ideas and theories well beyond their breaking point. The Damsels in Distress video is the clearest version of this where she makes a good point about character writing and traits, shows a handful of mostly older games that follow the trope, then most of the newer games she shows aren't really applicable if you actually played the game and understood the story and characters. This video is probably the most unbalanced of the bunch so far and the first time I disagree with her basic premise, the idea of women NPC's as background sex objects. Again, sure, it happens in some games but the [I]vast [/I]majority of her examples were open world games that are filled with a variety of NPC's. For every strip club employee or prostitute there are dozens of just regular female NPC's that you can interact with at your leisure.

Yeah I suppose you're right. This video lost it's credibility for me because of the games she chose and the context of such games.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;45142520]I'm not sure if she is "extreme" necessarily, she just happens to choose specific examles of games that stretch her ideas and theories well beyond their breaking point. The Damsels in Distress video is the clearest version of this where she makes a good point about character writing and traits, shows a handful of mostly older games that follow the trope, then most of the newer games she shows aren't really applicable if you actually played the game and understood the story and characters. This video is probably the most unbalanced of the bunch so far and the first time I disagree with her basic premise, the idea of women NPC's as background sex objects. Again, sure, it happens in some games but the [I]vast [/I]majority of her examples were open world games that are filled with a variety of NPC's. For every strip club employee or prostitute there are dozens of just regular female NPC's that you can interact with at your leisure.[/QUOTE] My issue with her is not that she brings the wrong talking points to the table (though I strongly disagree with a lot of her sexual ones: women are just as capable of being sexual creatures as men are, and should be free to explore that side without judgement), it's that it all feels like school-style regurgitation. She clearly doesn't understand her own ideology or the games she is judging. Does she even play the games she is talking about? It really doesn't seem like it. If she is playing them, she has found a way to turn nearly everything into an offence against women, including a strong female lead (just a woman in a man's role). Then again if you read the thesis that got her a degree, that is literally exactly what she does there with zero science to back up anything she says. She has had these one-way goggles on for a long time and it shows. I also absolutely abhor disallowing discussion of an opinion you make publicly. Banning comments and ratings on her stuff implies to me she isn't interested in discussing anything, and instead has every intention of ramming it down our throats. This is not how intelligent debate is done, but then her convictions don't seem to be based in truth to begin with. In this context, you see her videos for what they really are: they're not about creating awareness or debate, they are half-hour sales pitches for her opinions. They have more in common with penis enlargement infomercials than any sort of discussion or documentary.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45143425]I also absolutely abhor disallowing discussion of an opinion you make publicly. Banning comments and ratings on her stuff implies to me she isn't interested in discussing anything, and instead has every intention of ramming it down our throats. This is not how intelligent debate is done, but then her convictions don't seem to be based in truth to begin with.[/QUOTE] Right. I'm sure that if she enabled comments on her Youtube videos they would be brimming with thoughtful, critical debate highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of her arguments and enlightening people on both sides of the issue. Because that's how people comment on controversial Youtube videos.

[QUOTE=Larikang;45145430]Right. I'm sure that if she enabled comments on her Youtube videos they would be brimming with thoughtful, critical debate highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of her arguments and enlightening people on both sides of the issue. Because that's how people comment on controversial Youtube videos.[/QUOTE] It's the principle of the act.

[QUOTE=bdd458;45147781]It's the principle of the act.[/QUOTE] Is it? What good would it do to have a few thoughtful comments among the inevitable torrents of hateful, ignorant, insulting vitriol?