Trops vs Women in Video Games - Women as Background Decoration: Part 2 - General

[QUOTE=Denicide;45807875]That's a really shitty way to look at discussion of gender and it kind of pidgeonholes and patronizes gaming as a result. Like, when someone writes about an 'issue' in literature or film, no one has this daft, kneejerk response that it will somehow make the medium 'look bad'. On the contrary, looking at things critically (especially if your audience aren't sending you death threats, I guess) is a mark of a medium's maturity. For example: the best critics of literature can create thoughtful critiques of race or gender or class and no one feels the need to defend 'literature.' It isn't somehow worse because someone's written something critical of a part of it; on the contrary, it's enhanced. It's stunning that no one feels the need to defend 'great works' of literature like [I]Middlemarch [/I]when people like Edward Said point out dodgey depictions of the Near East, but when it's a game people are up in arms that videogames are 'ruined.' Every other artistic medium is critiqued in a way that can maturely look at issues presented but somehow videogames are above it? I don't think Anita's videos are to that standard, but they're a beginning.[/QUOTE] And when someone that has no stake in said media makes a ham-fisted, accusatory critical analysis that serves as nothing more than a vehicle to push their toxic agenda, people tend to mock and deride that person. I haven't seen anyone make the claim that videogames aren't allowed to be critically analyzed, simply that Anita is a sock puppet full of hot air.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45808441]also her last point is probably the best one to take away from this. people can accept that there's infinite lives, regenerating health, dragons etc. but somehow games are too unrealistic without a whorehouse[/QUOTE] No it's a terrible point. Regenerating health, infinite lives, saving, interface etc. Is a part of the game not part of the game world. You don't have NPCs talking about regenerating health and saves, this has nothing to do with realism. Completely different level. Dragons and other fantasy elements are put in the games ON TOP of a world that we know or can imagine. Like medieval times or present times. And if it's a shitty part of docks in medieval times or the middle of a bad neighborhood in a made-up city of america, there's gonna be a whorehouse. And it's going to fit into the world perfectly. If you want a game to act like it's happening in medieval times then those realities have to be there, or you are adding another "magical" element there, and it might not fit perfectly and seem really odd that people are selling drugs, killing, stealing, have fucking slaves, but nope prostitution doesn't exist for some reason. And there will also be the opposite, where a whorehouse is not needed and doesn't fit. You can't just switch shit around to be politically correct and then go "yeah those are totally medieval times with muslims, christians, afro-americans and jews in a middle-earth fighting evil necromancer".

[QUOTE=Luafox;45808441] anyway i watched the entire video and she has a couple of valid points, some of those games have scenes that are just as bad as the tomb raider river death scenes and it just makes me feel bad how most big games pretend that they have to be so gritty[/QUOTE] What is so bad about that death scene? The entire point of Tomb Raider is that Lara barely survives, and having brutal deaths emphasises that. She can also be impaled, stabbed in the heart, be set on fire, and torn apart by wolves. Why is the river death so terrible?

Holy shit, when she talked about the prostitute 'of colour' getting beaten up in Far Cry without actually mentioning that the fucking game is set in the area and pretty much all the characters are indigenous, including the pimp. [editline]26th August 2014[/editline] Also how the prostitutes were somehow sexual inside the bordello and that's not to be expected? Were they meant to be wearing long, frilly dresses or something? They didn't even seem to be sexually posed, more like 'pinned against a wall by a spear in their throat'.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;45808925]What is so bad about that death scene? The entire point of Tomb Raider is that Lara barely survives, and having brutal deaths emphasises that. She can also be impaled, stabbed in the heart, be set on fire, and torn apart by wolves. Why is the river death so terrible?[/QUOTE] I guess the river death is the most memorable one since it's so easy to trigger and one of the most brutal ones (she lives for like a second after her head is impaled and then ineffectually tries to take it out).

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809042]i didn't mean it was bad in the context of the game, I'm sure it makes a lot of sense in the game. I mean it was bad as in I don't want to see that stuff, and related it to the god of war example where you can go back and look at the mangled bloodied corpse. It just seems to me that many games try to get grittier and more hard boiled when they could be just as good without it, especially when a nipslip is apparently worse than maiming people and it seems to become the default in many big title games.[/QUOTE] So you did exactly what people hate about Anita's videos to prove her point? You can't take things out of context and demonise them just because you don't want to see it.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809042]i didn't mean it was bad in the context of the game, I'm sure it makes a lot of sense in the game. I mean it was bad as in I don't want to see that stuff, and related it to the god of war example where you can go back and look at the mangled bloodied corpse. It just seems to me that many games try to get grittier and more hard boiled when they could be just as good without it, especially when a nipslip is apparently worse than maiming people and it seems to become the default in many big title games.[/QUOTE] [quote]I mean it was bad as in I don't want to see that stuff,[/quote] Some media isn't particularly aimed at your interests, amazing. The deaths and grittyness were heavily featured in promotional material, if you "don't want to see it" you can just pick up a different game instead. Many games do try to get grittier, because publishers and developers know that gritty [B]sells[/B], which is the exact reason Death Metal albums had bloody skeletons for covers when that was big decades ago and the Saw/Final Destination franchises had commercial success despite being poorly strung together series of over-the-top gory setpieces. This isn't something to complain about, particularly because there's plenty more media for people who don't like that kind of stuff.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809100]This boils down to the "suspension of disbelief" idea. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing that some games like that exist, but the problem as I see it is that every big title go to the same well and pick out the same tropes over and over. It's really uninspired and just serves to normalise the idea that every game should have that to create an immersive world, when you could do anything with your artistic vision.[/QUOTE] That's a problem with all large companies. If they get something that works they'll wring it dry, and keep going even after there's nothing left. It's actually the main point of the latest Jimquisition episode, which you should check out if you haven't already seen it.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809100]This boils down to the "suspension of disbelief" idea. I don't think its necessarily a bad thing that some games like that exist, but the problem as I see it is that every big title go to the same well and pick out the same tropes over and over. It's really uninspired and just serves to normalise the idea that every game should have that to create an immersive world, when you could do anything with your artistic vision.[/QUOTE] Then it boils down to games being copies of each other. If every game is going to present a bad part of docks in medieval times, I'm sure we're going to find a brothel in the vast majority of those games. But the problem is not with the brothels, it's with the games all happening in the same places. Same way the problem isn't exclusively with one-dimensional female characters in video games, it's a problem with all characters being one-dimensional. It all boils down to shitty writing and copying other titles. In other words, the problem is not where you say it is.

[QUOTE=Mister_Jack;45808786]And when someone that has no stake in said media makes a ham-fisted, accusatory critical analysis that serves as nothing more than a vehicle to push their toxic agenda, people tend to mock and deride that person. I haven't seen anyone make the claim that videogames aren't allowed to be critically analyzed, simply that Anita is a sock puppet full of hot air.[/QUOTE] Er, plenty of people are saying that in this very thread. The guy I replied to suggested that critical analysis of games would make the medium 'look bad' when the opposite is true. I'm not sure if by 'no stake in the media' you mean she hasn't written or developed games before which is true (to my knowledge) or that she doesn't play games. In the case of the former that's as much a positive as a negative and I don't really think there's any evidence for the latter except that people constantly repeat it. I mean, if she didn't care about videogames she'd be utterly mad to put herself through making videos like this with the reception they get by the thousand. If you don't mind my asking, what do you think her agenda is and why do you think it is toxic? [QUOTE=latin_geek;45809135]Some media isn't particularly aimed at your interests, amazing. The deaths and grittyness were heavily featured in promotional material, if you "don't want to see it" you can just pick up a different game instead. Many games do try to get grittier, because publishers and developers know that gritty [B]sells[/B], which is the exact reason Death Metal albums had bloody skeletons for covers when that was big decades ago and the Saw/Final Destination franchises had commercial success despite being poorly strung together series of over-the-top gory setpieces. This isn't something to complain about, particularly because there's plenty more media for people who don't like that kind of stuff.[/QUOTE] To equate critical analysis to complaining is a bit of a stretch. In the same way you can continue enjoying [piece of media someone else finds issue with], their talking about it doesn't (or shouldn't) make it worse for you.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45808689]who's calling the game shit because of that? [B]"you can both enjoy a piece of material while at the same time being critical of its content" [/B] people sure like to ignore this line a lot [editline]26th August 2014[/editline] there's a difference between saying "I like video games" and "I'm a gamer" the latter one has had social downsides for many many years[/QUOTE] I purposefully disregard it because I don't believe in doublethink.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809412]But I don't think the problem is limited to mass produced games that have been milked dry. People are affected by media and seeing this stuff in so many games is going to have some sort of effect on people, especially without more well known counter-examples. Media isn't an isolated island far away from social interactions, it's an integrated part of society.[/QUOTE] This is nothing more than an unfounded assumption, and it was just as ridiculous when Jack Thompson was the one saying it.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809412]But I don't think the problem is limited to mass produced games that have been milked dry. People are affected by media and seeing this stuff in so many games [B]is going to have some sort of effect on people[/B], especially without more well known counter-examples. Media isn't an isolated island far away from social interactions, it's an integrated part of society.[/QUOTE] This could be easily countered with the whole "you kill hundreds of people in grand theft auto and that doesn't make you want to murder people" argument. Media isn't a part of society, media [I]reflects[/I] society. The sexualization of women, when [I]properly placed[/I], isn't an issue on itself, because brothels are real places, ads of (alive) women in suggestive poses advertising any other kind of product are easily found in real-life magazines, and prostitutes/the mistreatment of sex workers/sexual abuse are real issues that happen every day, in real life, outside of videogames and movies. In games like Red Dead it's historically appropriate stuff, it has a context that is conveniently left aside when discussing the subject. There's plenty to say about the way games handle that kind of thing, but feminist frequency and most other "feminists" who talk about the subject just list off examples and act [I]as if that stuff should not be touched upon at all.[/I] For example, one of the few good points in the [I]half-hour video that took two months to produce[/I] is how in watchdogs' sexual assault mini-mission, the woman being harassed can't be interacted with in a positive way after capturing/stopping/killing her assailant, even though she shows visible stress/injury/etc. This is presumably because that's not a [I]fun[/I] or [I]interesting[/I] thing to do in a videogame, but it leaves behind the fact that WD is just as shallow in a lot of other aspects. The mission isn't meant as social commentary, or meant to show that abuse is a bad thing, but the opposite, the game assumes you know abuse is bad and uses that to give you a task.

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;45809428]I purposefully disregard it because I don't believe in doublethink.[/QUOTE] So it's doublethink to say "Yeah I really like the Half Life 2 series, they're pretty solid shooters. Shame the physics puzzles suck nuts and the story presentation leaves a lot up in the air unanswered." It's really not hard to like something, but at the same time be aware it is flawed. I love the fuck out of Bioshock Infinite, but the game is super flawed in some pretty noticeable ways. It's preventing me from playing it through again, but I still love the damn game.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809412]But I don't think the problem is limited to mass produced games that have been milked dry. People are affected by media and seeing this stuff in so many games is going to have some sort of effect on people, especially without more well known counter-examples. Media isn't an isolated island far away from social interactions, it's an integrated part of society.[/QUOTE] And what effect is that going to be? Knowledge that in places where crime, drugs and murder is commonplace there's also going to be prostitutes? I like how you are acting like putting few prostitutes in the background has such a major effect on people but completely ignore that you can get away with murdering people left and right in those games.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809546]Except I think you'll find that "games make people into murderers" is different from "games perpertuate stereotypes and oppression".[/QUOTE] Both are complete nonsense. Both make assumptions about how any number of given works are interpreted or consumed by any number of people. Both make assumptions about what the effect of media on people's views and opinions are, without even the slightest regard for evidence or verification.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45809506]This is nothing more than an unfounded assumption, and it was just as ridiculous when Jack Thompson was the one saying it.[/QUOTE] If you want to believe games are nothing but momentary distractions that can have no meaningful effect on the people that play them, you're free to do that. I mean, if you don't accept the premise that games [I]do[/I] effect people, for good or ill, then really anything beyond a simple game review is worthless. Jack Thompson was saying a) that there is a direct, causal link between mass shootings and the games people played before them and b) that said games should be banned. No one is arguing that just playing a game with an iffy attitude to women will unequivocally make you a worse person. Instead, games can have as much of an impact on you as movies or books or paintings. It's not direct, and it's affected as much by who you are, how you play a game as the 'message', but it's there.

[QUOTE=usaokay;45797818] You're blocking off people's right to having their voices heard, no matter how rude or vulgar it is.[/QUOTE] You don't have that right on a privately owned site. Awful reason to attack someone disabling comments of one of the most toxic communities and straight up useless sites for discussion on the Internet.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809546]Except I think you'll find that "games make people into murderers" is different from "games perpertuate stereotypes and oppression".[/QUOTE] But they are portraying reality (to a certain point). Are you saying that if someone is making a movie about times where blacks/women were highly discriminated, he shouldn't show it as it was but some political correct version? And most of the time things like prostitution are shown as a negative in games or over the top glorified in games that mock things. Barely ever it's actually glorified.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45806581]but also of race.[/QUOTE] the game opens with a black man in the back of a police car bravo max so progressive 10/10

[QUOTE=Denicide;45809619]If you want to believe games are nothing but momentary distractions that can have no meaningful effect on the people that play them, you're free to do that. I mean, if you don't accept the premise that games [I]do[/I] effect people, for good or ill, then really anything beyond a simple game review is worthless. Jack Thompson was saying a) that there is a direct, causal link between mass shootings and the games people played before them and b) that said games should be banned. No one is arguing that just playing a game with an iffy attitude to women will unequivocally make you a worse person. Instead, games can have as much of an impact on you as movies or books or paintings. It's not direct, and it's affected as much by who you are, how you play a game as the 'message', but it's there.[/QUOTE] I'll believe exactly what I have [I]reason[/I] to believe. And I see absolutely nothing to suggest that what you're saying has any basis in reality. And yeah, people who say similar things about books, movies, and fine art are just as wrong as you are. It's a bunch of fear mongering horse shit used as a cudgel by underhanded cretins to scare or intimidate people into accepting their world view against their logical judgement. "If you want to believe", fuck me, like I'm the one making the claim that needs to be "believed" here. Christ's sake. That's such a transparent shifting of the burden of proof.

Is anyone else of the mind that this kind of thing really won't matter in the long run because video games are just barely starting to mature as a medium? every new form of artistic expression has been ignored, attacked, chastised, and criticized as it begins to spread to the mainstream. see: every school of painting that deviated from classical techniques, every genre of music that broke tradition and upset the older generations, all forms of modern dance until they grew enough that the classical purists quieted their whining, the very first television shows that dared to tell meaningful stories, the first superhero comic books, the first motion picture, and then the first color films, and others i can't come up with right now. The medium will continue to take its shape, spend a little time on the hot seat, grow some more, and then a new form of entertainment will develop and the collective public Eye of Sauron will shift its gaze.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809744][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RPr9DwMA#t=1410[/url] From here she talks about why a replication is not a critique, which is sorta my point about games perpertuating negative ideas.[/QUOTE] So you can only depict something negative if it is the focus of your game? So you can only portray a reality if you fully explore every moral nook and cranny? That's ridiculous.

[QUOTE=Luafox;45808689]who's calling the game shit because of that? "you can both enjoy a piece of material while at the same time being critical of its content" people sure like to ignore this line a lot [/QUOTE] Because its a garbage line that says "oh its okay to like this even though it's backwards in its social views/has actual technical flaws in it". It rips the teeth out of raw, honest criticism and continues the hugbox, kiddie glove mentality of "constructive" criticism rather than putting some boots on throats and getting some real change going.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45809697]I'll believe exactly what I have [I]reason[/I] to believe. And I see absolutely nothing to suggest that what you're saying has any basis in reality. And yeah, people who say similar things about books, movies, and fine art are just as wrong as you are. It's a bunch of fear mongering horse shit used as a cudgel by underhanded cretins to scare or intimidate people into accepting their world view against their logical judgement. "If you want to believe", fuck me, like I'm the one making the claim that needs to be "believed" here. Christ's sake. That's such a transparent shifting of the burden of proof.[/QUOTE] Whatever about games, it flies in the face of all evidence to suggest art broadly can't effect what people think or do. I'm sure you yourself have been convinced of something or thought about something in a different way because of how a work of fiction presented something. One of the most overused examples: [I]Guernica[/I], by Picasso. It depicts the bombing of a Spanish village during their civil war and it was used (successfully) to drum up support for the Republicans. A few other obvious examples of art effecting how people think: anthems of countries or groups, films like Sergei Eisenstein's made to promote the Soviet Union, novels like [I]Les Miserables[/I] being used literally to the present day by republican groups. (That is, people who want a republic wherever they are, not the American political party). If you want to learn more about this, I would recommend Theodor Adorno's [I]The Culture Industry[/I] or Edward Said's [I]Orientalism [/I]for a very specific case study of representations of the Near East. Neither are particularly easy reads, I'll admit, but if you want to know more, those are the best I know. Also, briefly: an anthem for a country or group is chosen and composed very deliberately to create feelings of pride. Depending on the context there are plenty of examples of

[QUOTE=Luafox;45809744][URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i_RPr9DwMA#t=1410[/URL] From here she talks about why a replication is not a critique, which is sorta my point about games perpertuating negative ideas.[/QUOTE] No, sorry. Again bad argument. You want to show a bad part of docks in medieval times. The game is gritty enough to have a brothel. But you don't think that exploiting women is a good thing so you will show it as something negative and wrong. But it's still background. According to anita that's a no-go as it would "sanitize violence against women and make it comfortably consumable" and "[they] do not center on or focus on women's struggles womens perseverance or women's survival in the face of oppression nor are these narratives seriously interested in any sort of critical analysis or exploration of emotional ramifications of violence against women on either cultural or personal level". It has to be "approached with subtlety, gravity and respect that the topic deserves" and "critique must center on the character exploring, challenging and changing or struggling with oppressive social systems". I'm sorry but that means it's either focused on empowering the oppressed women with all seriousness and gravity of it or prostitutes can't be in a video game.

I really hope there's a point in time where I can simply play a video game without having to hear how it's portrayal of x, y, z is offensive to x, y, z. Unless it's actively supporting misogyny, racism, etc. ([B]not simply acknowledging it exists[/B]) than ultimately it doesn't matter. [B]Yes[/B], rape exists, [B]yes[/B], sexual assault exists, and [B]yes[/B] they are terrible things; however they are a sad reality, and displaying an exaggerated version of them isn't inherently evil. If anything, it prompts discussion bringing the [B]real[/B] issue to the forefront. [sp]now im all upset about video games goddamnit[/sp]

[QUOTE=Denicide;45809931]Whatever about games, it flies in the face of all evidence to suggest art broadly can't effect what people think or do. I'm sure you yourself have been convinced of something or thought about something in a different way because of how a work of fiction presented something. One of the most overused examples: [I]Guernica[/I], by Picasso. It depicts the bombing of a Spanish village during their civil war and it was used (successfully) to drum up support for the Republicans. A few other obvious examples of art effecting how people think: anthems of countries or groups, films like Sergei Eisenstein's made to promote the Soviet Union, novels like [I]Les Miserables[/I] being used literally to the present day by republican groups. (That is, people who want a republic wherever they are, not the American political party). If you want to learn more about this, I would recommend Theodor Adorno's [I]The Culture Industry[/I] or Edward Said's [I]Orientalism [/I]for a very specific case study of representations of the Near East. Neither are particularly easy reads, I'll admit, but if you want to know more, those are the best I know. Also, briefly: an anthem for a country or group is chosen and composed very deliberately to create feelings of pride. Depending on the context there are plenty of examples of[/QUOTE] No, not really. Do I think about the topics I see presented in stories? Of course, that's the point of a story. But I've never once thought to myself, "Man this Dead or Alive game is great. I guess that's what women are really like!" But what I find so interesting are your examples. A painting that was [I]used[/I] in a propaganda campaign. A book being [I]used[/I] by republicans. It's almost as though the only works that end up "affecting how people think" are the ones tied directly to a propaganda campaign. Funny how none of Picasso's paintings ever caused a spontaneous uprising, separate from any other context. It's almost as though the message is coming from the propagandists, and not the work itself. It's almost as though people are being affected by the rhetoric.

[QUOTE=Denicide;45808735]Does she seem angry to you? She really has nothing to say about the quality of the game or other areas of it for the pretty good reason that it's called 'Tropes vs. Women.' It's about something very specific. If anything it's already spread too thin, and you want an even [I]wider [/I]spread.[/QUOTE] "angry" Actually, my points were made in the video I posted, where she just went straight for "bla bla female, sex, pervert poses, misoginy and so forth" and ignored several other things about the main character of the game. She doesn't even knows the story ffs. [editline]27th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mini Shot;45808991]I guess the river death is the most memorable one since it's so easy to trigger and one of the most brutal ones (she lives for like a second after her head is impaled and then ineffectually tries to take it out).[/QUOTE] Is she mad that Isaac Clarke has a more hardcore death in Dead Space 2 where he impales HIMSELF up through the jaw? [editline]27th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Luafox;45809042]i didn't mean it was bad in the context of the game, I'm sure it makes a lot of sense in the game. I mean it was bad as in I don't want to see that stuff, and related it to the god of war example where you can go back and look at the mangled bloodied corpse. It just seems to me that many games try to get grittier and more hard boiled when they could be just as good without it, especially when a nipslip is apparently worse than maiming people and it seems to become the default in many big title games.[/QUOTE] That's what age ratings and warning labels are about.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;45810366]No, not really. Do I think about the topics I see presented in stories? Of course, that's the point of a story. But I've never once thought to myself, "Man this Dead or Alive game is great. I guess that's what women are really like!" But what I find so interesting are your examples. A painting that was [I]used[/I] in a propaganda campaign. A book being [I]used[/I] by republicans. It's almost as though the only works that end up "affecting how people think" are the ones tied directly to a propaganda campaign. Funny how none of Picasso's paintings ever caused a spontaneous uprising, separate from any other context. It's almost as though the message is coming from the propagandists, and not the work itself. It's almost as though people are being affected by the rhetoric.[/QUOTE] As I've already said, works are absolutely affected by the how their viewed, what you've been told about them before but that doesn't make the work itself less effective. My point was to show that they are used, because they wouldn't be if they didn't work. When you say you 'think about the topics presented in stories' that's exactly what I mean by art affecting you. If it makes you think about a topic that [I]is [/I]being affected by it. Whether that's something abstract like transhumanism in [I]Deus Ex: Human Revolution[/I] or something more concrete like coming out in [I]Gone Home[/I], it's a piece of art affecting how you think about something. Moreover if it's good art it can give you an insight into a perspective you don't have and so you have new 'information' to think about. It's unlikely I'll ever fight for the U.S. Army or come into close contact with heavy artillery but games like [I]Spec Ops: The Line[/I] can make me consider the dehumanizing effect of some weapons of war. In most of those games (even Deus Ex, which kind of bungles trying to be evenhanded) there's a message the creators are trying to convey about a topic that tries to convince you of a viewpoint. Whether you accept or reject that viewpoint, it's still a piece of art affecting how you think.