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

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129253]Physical assault and being offensive [I]are not equal crimes.[/I][/QUOTE] maybe not, but they're both still crimes. why would you let one of them slip by and not the other?

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129267]maybe not, but they're both still crimes. why would you let one of them slip by and not the other?[/QUOTE] Being offensive isn't a crime. Assault and battery is a crime. Harassment through repeated verbal abuse is a crime. Offending someone is not a crime.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129267]maybe not, but they're both still crimes. why would you let one of them slip by and not the other?[/QUOTE] being offensive is not a crime, I thought I just explained that Fuck's sake Max, I defended you before. You don't need to auto-dumb me just because you disagree with my opinion, I'm really trying over here.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129253]Physical assault and being offensive [I]are not equal crimes.[/I][/quote] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129269]Being offensive isn't a crime.[/QUOTE] He's not talking about "being offensive", he's talking about hate speech, which is a crime. [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129271]Fuck's sake Max, I defended you before. You don't need to auto-dumb me just because you disagree with my opinion.[/QUOTE] I'm not rating you dumb because I disagree, I'm rating dumb because you're (purposefully?) reducting his post or misunderstanding it. Several times. Geez, considering somebody on the first page kept saying "blargh them feminists are shallow and look only at the outer layer" you guys are really quick to oversimplify someone's point...

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45129269]Being offensive isn't a crime. Assault and battery is a crime. Harassment through repeated verbal abuse is a crime. Offending someone is not a crime.[/QUOTE] i'm talking about hate speech, he's the one who keeps reverting back to "being offensive" when i've made it quite clear that i'd only censor something that fell under that definition [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129271]being offensive is not a crime, I thought I just explained that[/QUOTE] actually no you said it wasn't equal to physical assault, not that it wasn't a crime

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129276]He's not talking about "being offensive", he's talking about hate speech, which is a crime.[/QUOTE] he literally said that being offensive and beating people in the street are both crimes I defined hate speech, remember? Hate speech is not "being offensive"

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129288]he literally said that being offensive and beating people in the street are both crimes[/QUOTE] I think you're purposefully misreading his posts at this point. He never talked about "being offensive", his posts very clearly contain the words "hate speech". [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45129288]I defined hate speech, remember? Hate speech is not "being offensive"[/QUOTE] Well, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time imagining a scenario where hate speech wouldn't be offensive...

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45129284]i'm talking about hate speech, he's the one who keeps reverting back to "being offensive" when i've made it quite clear that i'd only censor something that fell under that definition [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] actually no you said it wasn't equal to physical assault, not that it wasn't a crime[/QUOTE] It isn't equal because it isn't a crime What it is is offensive. What it is not is hate speech. You believe it is offensive enough to be classified as hate speech, but as I explained earlier that is not what hate speech is. You are saying hate speech, but what you're actually talking about is offensive content.

okay since all of you love to just post literal definitions of things here's what hate speech is [IMG]http://puu.sh/9xgzq/c528e9cd0e.png[/IMG] if we're just talking about anita sarkesieanmeantsadklfian, some of the remarks and shit towards her [I]do[/I] constitute as hate speech. death threats, rape threats, some dude making a flash game where you beat her up, [I]countless[/I] offensive and vulgar videos made in response to her video series. now here's "offensive" [IMG]http://puu.sh/9xgGS/858a0fad25.png[/IMG] somebody called me an idiot for not liking sniper elite v2, i find that offensive, but it's not hate speech. and here's where it gets [I]sort of complicated[/I], things that are hate speech can ALSO be things that are offensive, but the two are not mutually exclusive. so, hate speech can be offensive, but something offensive is not ALWAYS hate speech. is there any other words i need to google and get literal definitions of or what. also, trying to downplay verbal abuse and hate speech by saying it's not as bad as physical violence is really dumb. at least in this case, they're not on the same level. please don't try to put objective worth on suffering and violence.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129302]I think you're purposefully misreading his posts at this point. He never talked about "being offensive", his posts very clearly contain the words "hate speech". Well, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time imagining a scenario where hate speech wouldn't be offensive...[/QUOTE] I could have put that better, I apologize. Hate speech is offensive, but not all things that are offensive are hate speech. Axe murder tends to be loud and painful, not all loud and painful things are axe murder.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45129276]He's not talking about "being offensive", he's talking about hate speech, which is a crime.[/QUOTE] He very clearly stated being offensive is a crime, by quoting Scorpio talking about being offensive and mentioning it as a crime. Now about Hate Speech. It may be illegal in some countries (it's very lenient in the US, while France is adamant on making any and all hate speech that incites on violence against a specific group completely illegal), but in my opinion, it sure as fuck shouldn't be, because making hate speech illegal doesn't remove hate, it just turns open hate into closet hate. And you know what the problem is when someone has to hide their hatred for an entire group ? It boils, it cooks, it builds up to the point where it eventually blows up and out of the kettle, and when that sort of shit blows up, that is when far right wing parties suddenly gain a huge influx of voters and win at important elections. My point is, it's better to let the dogs bark in the open and ignore them than strap a muzzle and turn loud barking into a growing threat to bite.

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;45129308]okay since all of you love to just post literal definitions of things here's what hate speech is [IMG]http://puu.sh/9xgzq/c528e9cd0e.png[/IMG] if we're just talking about anita sarkesieanmeantsadklfian, some of the remarks and shit towards her [I]do[/I] constitute as hate speech. death threats, rape threats, some dude making a flash game where you beat her up, [I]countless[/I] offensive and vulgar videos made in response to her video series. now here's "offensive" [IMG]http://puu.sh/9xgGS/858a0fad25.png[/IMG] somebody called me an idiot for not liking sniper elite v2, i find that offensive, but it's not hate speech. and here's where it gets [I]sort of complicated[/I], things that are hate speech can ALSO be things that are offensive, but the two are not mutually exclusive. so, hate speech can be offensive, but something offensive is not ALWAYS hate speech. is there any other words i need to google and get literal definitions of or what. also, trying to downplay verbal abuse and hate speech by saying it's not as bad as physical violence is really dumb. at least in this case, they're not on the same level. please don't try to put objective worth on suffering and violence.[/QUOTE] I don't remember bringing up anita sarkeesian I'm talking very specifically about the legal definition of hate speech as it relates to art and audience interpretation, if you want to bring up verbal abuse and death threats then fine, but as far as I'm aware that's a separate topic and a separate conversation. [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] And come the fuck on, Why in the hell would I still be talking if I was purposefully misreading people's points? I'm getting sloppy and making assumptions about what page we're all on. If I wanted to get cheap vindication I would have just thrown popcorn at max when he got banned like everyone else. I've been arguing this shit for how long? I think I've earned just a little benefit of the doubt, despite my numerous errors.

sorry to break this to you Anita, but prostitutes, strippers and just regular slutty women actually exist in the real world also rewards or lack punishment for violence against people in open world games isn't exactly unique to violence against women

I've got to sleep, so I'm just going to run over my earlier points real quick since I didn't do the best job of explaining them. The message of any creative work is a matter of interpretation. You could view Birth of a Nation as satire and GTA V as hard, direct social commentary and be totally right in doing so. Hate speech, as it is legally defined at least, is speech that has no other possible purpose other than the inciting of hatred and violence against minorities. The problem is, to say that something creative fits that definition means saying your interpretation of it is the absolute and only possible one. Which I would argue is an impossible claim to make. And that is what's at the heart of the issue. I may be wrong here, but what I see is that [I]in effect[/I], what a lot of people are saying is "I only want to censor things that are really, really, really offensive. But I don't want to censor artists." You can say hate speech, but the way you're using the word is synonymous with offensive.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;45124225]I wonder if anyone is going to bother watching the video before the stupid childish arguments begin. Not that she actually makes good videos, just wondering[/QUOTE] Her argument is stupid and for the most part completely misguided to the point where she's criticizing someone for depicting the conditions in shanty towns in a negative way. Max Payne 3 clearly did not objectify women, that shanty scene was designed to disgust not arouse you: you were supposed to think 'fuck, these are horrible conditions and it's disgusting women are violently forced into doing this' as opposed to 'haha, women getting fucked against her actual will for money'. I'm not going to criticize the production value of Feminist Frequency, it is really well made, but she has no idea what the fuck she is talking about. [editline]17th June 2014[/editline] The Darkness 2, again that brothel scene was intended to make you uncomfortable and make you think of the characters around you as slimy and sick. This women just has no idea, she appears to think being in women in video games is sexist. Especially if the scene is criticizing the way society may view women or the way the world crafted by the developer views women (GTA5 and Dishonored respectively)

Terrible video, couldn't stand watching the whole thing. [QUOTE]Hitman: Absolution features a mission in which the player can create a diversion by picking up and dumping the dead body of an exotic dancer near police officers.[/QUOTE] Why is this even brought up, using dead bodies as diversions has always been a thing in hitman regardless of gender. And seriously, she complain about over sexualisation in [b]strip clubs[/b]. Anita is doing a terrible job on her videos.

[QUOTE=isnipeu;45130562]Terrible video, couldn't stand watching the whole thing. Why is this even brought up, using dead bodies as diversions has always been a thing in hitman regardless of gender. And seriously, she complain about over sexualisation in [b]strip clubs[/b]. Anita is doing a terrible job on her videos.[/QUOTE] She doesn't have to do her job at all, she already got that sweet dosh. She's just increasing her rep among other likeminded individuals so she can get more dosh later. A lot of money for not much effort. Clever if you ask me.

[QUOTE=Rossy167;45130374]The Darkness 2, again that brothel scene was intended to make you uncomfortable and make you think of the characters around you as slimy and sick. This women just has no idea, she appears to think being in women in video games is sexist. Especially if the scene is criticizing the way society may view women or the way the world crafted by the developer views women (GTA5 and Dishonored respectively)[/QUOTE] You know her criticism of the darkness doesn't make sense to me at all because the first game was one of the very few games that bothered to humanize the main character's love interest and actually showed them in a very caring relationship. She says it's bad she gets killed as a plot point but that's the thing, you're suppose to hate the bad guys. Her entire focus is that this character is female and she died but she didn't touch up on the fair bit of character development we saw. I like some points she makes but taking things out of context is not the best way to illustrate your argument.

[QUOTE=mchapra;45130627]You know her criticism of the darkness doesn't make sense to me at all because the first game was one of the very few games that bothered to humanize the main character's love interest and actually showed them in a very caring relationship. She says it's bad she gets killed as a plot point but that's the thing, you're suppose to hate the bad guys. Her entire focus is that this character is female and she died but she didn't touch up on the fair bit of character development we saw. [B]I like some points she makes but taking things out of context is not the best way to illustrate your argument.[/B][/QUOTE] that's literally all she does and it works for people who didn't play the game since they don't get the full picture.

[QUOTE=mchapra;45130627]You know her criticism of the darkness doesn't make sense to me at all because the first game was one of the very few games that bothered to humanize the main character's love interest and actually showed them in a very caring relationship. She says it's bad she gets killed as a plot point but that's the thing, you're suppose to hate the bad guys. Her entire focus is that this character is female and she died but she didn't touch up on the fair bit of character development we saw. I like some points she makes but taking things out of context is not the best way to illustrate your argument.[/QUOTE] That's cherrypicking. Most people who watch her videos seriously don't even know any of those games at all. Anita including.

I have read not much of these comments, so hopefully someone hasn't said this yet. This isn't sexist, this is called marketing. Do you think guys, which we can assume are the majority of the buyers of lets say GTA, would love to see male strippers everywhere, with their erect penises. Probably not, it's just marketing, the goal is to sell to the bigger audience, in this case it's men. If they are so concerned about women as backdrops and them being half naked majority of the time, why don't the go play Rust or something. There is quite a few dicks in that if that's what gets them off. (And yes, I did not watch the majority of the video, I am assuming the video is about that.)

If you did not watch the majority of video then why even comment on content of said video?

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=Zukriuchen;45128162]First off, he said there aren't a lot of games that have slutty NPCs, that's all. Satirical or not, all those games do have slutty NPCs. "feminism and transgenderism or whatever" what? when did we start talking about transgenderism?[/QUOTE] .....................and? So fucking what? Don't curl up and die from having sluts in games. Nobody did, I'm just saying. (and little aside, color me surprised when I see who rated me dumb)

[QUOTE=mchapra;45130627]You know her criticism of the darkness doesn't make sense to me at all because the first game was one of the very few games that bothered to humanize the main character's love interest and actually showed them in a very caring relationship. She says it's bad she gets killed as a plot point but that's the thing, you're suppose to hate the bad guys. Her entire focus is that this character is female and she died but she didn't touch up on the fair bit of character development we saw. I like some points she makes but taking things out of context is not the best way to illustrate your argument.[/QUOTE] To me she just has no idea how much she is talking about 100% of the time and basically sees women being in computer games as evil. I'm not suggesting some games don't objectify, but the ones that do should be criticized not all games (including ones that are being fucking feminist!).

[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] This would be a great series if it was done by someone competent. Someone who is willing to look at themes and storylines rather than saying "You can kill random female NPCs this game is sexist!" I never understood why feminists supported her after seeing her "Straw Feminist" video, in which she uses an episode of the Power Puff Girls and points out a straw feminist character and calls the show sexist, when the [i]entire point[/i] of that episode is that stupid people like that villain are not representative of feminism and that taking things at face value harms everyone involved. She also said Betty from the Rugrats was a straw feminist because she has a Venus symbol on her sweater, despite the fact that Betty is the only competent parent in the entire show.

That Hotel Mario clip at the very end was a really nice touch, after all that graphic imaginery of beaten up/murdered women I needed something funny to lighten up the mood. Seriously, the mere possibility of doing those things is the reason why I almost never play sandbox/life simulation games of that kind.

[QUOTE=Jorori;45131237]That Hotel Mario clip at the very end was a really nice touch, after all that graphic imaginery of beaten up/murdered women I needed something funny to make me feel better. Seriously, the mere possibility of doing those things is the reason why I almost never play sandbox/life simulation games of that kind.[/QUOTE] 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=Jorori;45131237]That Hotel Mario clip at the very end was a really nice touch, after all that graphic imaginery of beaten up/murdered women I needed something funny to lighten up the mood. Seriously, the mere possibility of doing those things is the reason why I almost never play sandbox/life simulation games of that kind.[/QUOTE] You are aware that is not the objective of any of those games, right?

There is an issue of poor gender representation in videogames but Anita is probably one of the worst people to do the job of spreading the awareness. Most of her arguments hold no ground to anyone who knows about the games she's talking about and the actual context that she's not including, most likely on purpose.