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

[QUOTE=Denicide;45810741]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.[/QUOTE] If your opinion on weapons of war is based only on information from Spec Ops, you're a fucking loony. If it's based on factual information you already knew which you reassessed because of Spec Ops, then the game isn't influencing your opinions. It's influencing what you spend your time thinking about. In none of these cases that you're bringing up is art changing anyone's views. All it's doing is making people rethink what they already know and believe, and possibly come to different conclusions. Again, based on what they already knew and believed. It is not teaching you anything about the world. It is not providing new information. It is giving you a different lense to view the same things, that is all. And if the world of the story doesn't line up with the world as you know it, it will not be an effective story. You're wrong. And even if you [I]weren't[/I], it would still take a dazzling display of mental gymnastics to go from this to "stories with certain tropes will make society more misogynistic".

[QUOTE=Denicide;45809931] 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. ...[/QUOTE] Funny thing is, Anita is using videogames to push her propaganda to change your views to hers.

There's a part of this video where she mentions that video games use of rape trivializes the experience of the women who have experienced. Why would that be the case? The people who usually are the victims are always seen as innocent, whilst the perpetrator is always ugly, vicious and cruel. It invokes fear; it invokes helplessness; it invokes hatred and regret. Art as a medium doesn't trivialize a message by utilizing it; the purpose is to help people who have never experienced it feel what it's like to have it happen. Isn't saying this trivializes experiences for victims the same as saying that the game "Depression Quest' is trivializing depression? [editline]27th August 2014[/editline] Let me explain myself better: In the movie 'Boogie Nights', there's a scene where Roller Girl is having sex with a random stranger on the street. It's only purpose is established to cheap to make and sell fast. The imagery is disturbing; the music is intense, and the whole thing is shot in the purest form of disgust possible. Compare this to the earlier scenes of the film; the sex scenes are shot with compassion, love; the purity of sexual fulfillment and and intense satisfied feeling. The difference? Roller Girl is essentially molested in the scene because she does pornography for the passion of love and sex. The point of the scene is to disgust the audience when earlier it was to exhilarate them. women having sex is completely different depending on how it is shown.

[QUOTE=Denicide;45809339]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.[/QUOTE] That is [b]not[/b] what I was suggesting. Maybe you should read the whole post instead of one sentence. I was saying that people form misconceptions about games and 'gamers' when influential media personalities like Anita give flawed and one-sided critical analysis. Critical analysis of the medium shouldn't be stifled, obviously. I never said that. Games have loads of problems that should be examined, as does every medium. I just feel that Anita does a terrible job of it. [editline]27th August 2014[/editline] By the way, I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the typo in the thread title yet. :v: I wish a mod would fix it.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;45811043]Funny thing is, Anita is using videogames to push her propaganda to change your views to hers.[/QUOTE] No, it's mostly to point out that sexism is somewhat of a problem in media entertainment. This isn't just about video games, its supposed to be a reflection of cultures perception. Now when using satirical pieces who point problems like this out in exaggerated manners as a case for misogony and sexist culture seems rather misinformed and parasitic to your point.

[QUOTE=john_pelphre;45812175]There's a part of this video where she mentions that video games use of rape trivializes the experience of the women who have experienced. Why would that be the case? The people who usually are the victims are always seen as innocent, whilst the perpetrator is always ugly, vicious and cruel. It invokes fear; it invokes helplessness; it invokes hatred and regret. Art as a medium doesn't trivialize a message by utilizing it; the purpose is to help people who have never experienced it feel what it's like to have it happen. Isn't saying this trivializes experiences for victims the same as saying that the game "Depression Quest' is trivializing depression? [editline]27th August 2014[/editline] Let me explain myself better: In the movie 'Boogie Nights', there's a scene where Roller Girl is having sex with a random stranger on the street. It's only purpose is established to cheap to make and sell fast. The imagery is disturbing; the music is intense, and the whole thing is shot in the purest form of disgust possible. Compare this to the earlier scenes of the film; the sex scenes are shot with compassion, love; the purity of sexual fulfillment and and intense satisfied feeling. The difference? Roller Girl is essentially molested in the scene because she does pornography for the passion of love and sex. The point of the scene is to disgust the audience when earlier it was to exhilarate them. women having sex is completely different depending on how it is shown.[/QUOTE] I think that the whole trivializing rape has more too do with why rape is used in the story. If the author is using the rape [U]purely[/U] as a story moving device, than the author is could be trivializing rape (even if they didn't intend to) since you could generally just interchange that with some other event and have the same effect, rape is only used as a shock value.

[QUOTE=Valnar;45812705]I think that the whole trivializing rape has more too do with why rape is used in the story. If the author is using the rape [U]purely[/U] as a story moving device, than the author is could be trivializing rape (even if they didn't intend to) since you could generally just interchange that with some other event and have the same effect, rape is only used as a shock value.[/QUOTE] Art is by it's very definition arbitrary. Trying to find a plot element that's objectively necessary in a story is like trying to find a rule in a sport that's objectively necessary. I find this kind of analysis asinine because it completely breaks down from an author perspective.

You could do the exact same thing as this video portreys in a film and have it be called compelling drama. A classic example is Taxi Driver. How are video games supposed to mature as a medium when we keep telling them what they can't do? Especially when it's the same thing every other medium is doing and getting applauded for?

All I want for games is that they're recognized as a fully realized medium that carries just as much weight as the movie industry. I don't want them to be called art, I don't want people to be forced to play them, I just want my favorite means of entertainment to get the respect and consideration it deserves.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45813399]All I want for games is that they're recognized as a fully realized medium that carries just as much weight as the movie industry. I don't want them to be called art, I don't want people to be forced to play them, I just want my favorite means of entertainment to get the respect and consideration it deserves.[/QUOTE]What sort of "respect" are games not getting that movies are? Last I checked hollywood movie industry was hell.

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;45809683]the game opens with a black man in the back of a police car bravo max so progressive 10/10[/QUOTE] ... and Lee goes through some of the best character development that has occured in the video game industry in years. Don't forget about that. There's a reason TWD got nominated for so many Game of the Year awards: because for once a game had good writing

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45806581]You want an example of good characters that aren't one-dimensional? Telltale's The Walking Dead is one of the best examples out there, not only on the dimension of gender, but also of race. This is what people are asking for.[/QUOTE] Telltale games are fully story based. You can't expect games that are more than point and click have same level of storytelling as a pure story based game.

[QUOTE=Rusty100;45813369]You could do the exact same thing as this video portreys in a film and have it be called compelling drama. A classic example is Taxi Driver. How are video games supposed to mature as a medium when we keep telling them what they can't do? Especially when it's the same thing every other medium is doing and getting applauded for?[/QUOTE] I think once this dies down we'll see either gaming really mature or go through that a short Film Noire like stage as game developers and the like become jaded because they're not only being told they can't do certain things or explore certain topcis so they'll find as many ways around it as possible to explore those. All these people trying to plant clamps down only have to look at book and movie history to see that trying to censor mediums just means the designers and writers will get more clever. [editline]27th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=itisjuly;45815453]Telltale games are fully story based. You can't expect games that are more than point and click have same level of storytelling as a pure story based game.[/QUOTE] I think what a lot of people miss is that story telling in the videogame medium is sound, visual and reading combined. Its not just one or the other, there is no other medium where you can read a book at your own pace to see the background of the lore. Its interactive story telling and so therefore its up to the gamer to read between the lines. The Walking Dead got so many awards because it evoked emotions really well but it wore all of said emotions on the sleeve so everyone could see it. Its not like in Half Life where as you get further in, the graffiti and fighting by the Marines is getting more desperate and profane, angrier like they know they're losing. This is not to knock on either game, they're two different forms of effective story telling. The silent protagonist is actually something specific to games because it means that they don't have a character, you fill in the shoes for the character. You make the decisions. Its not like Nathan Drake where you know he has a certain personality and he's willing to voice it out and you learn to operate more like him than like yourself. There's a criticism for every form of story telling but to ignore decent and good storytelling because it doesn't fit with what you believe is good story telling is the same as saying that Gone Home is a bad game because it doesn't follow the same standards as other games. Its pigeonholing a medium which can do so much more and attach itself more acutely with the viewer and listener than TV or Movies could ever dream of.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;45813926]... and Lee goes through some of the best character development that has occured in the video game industry in years. Don't forget about that. There's a reason TWD got nominated for so many Game of the Year awards: because for once a game had good writing[/QUOTE] Oh for once it had good writing. Apparently games didnt have amazing writing until TWD? Lee is a surrogate for the player btw, you can go through the entire game by not EVEN saying 1 word as Lee. TWD did not have amazing character development, did you forget Bipolar kenny? Or how bipolar everyone was, and how so many choices meant fuck all? I would love to know what amazing character development Lee went through. Because to me he started off as a guy who had murdered the guy he caught cheating with his wife, then protected a little girl the entire game like most human beings probably would.

No, TWD has a really good story when you participate. You're right, its up to the player to participate in the narrative, they could go off willy nilly and do whatever or not say a thing.

Whether you like it or not, characters in any story tend to either be the protagonist/main focus in which case they get all the attention from the writers, or be a plot-driving/driven side character who's only there to propel the plot forward in a suitable way. The Walking Dead is no exception to that. The main focus in season 1 was Clementine, she was the one to get through the most sensible character development and all other characters are just here to forward that development in some shape or form, and that includes Lee. I understand that you want better stories and writing in your video games (who doesn't) but there are still sensible expectations you should expect to meet in gaming. Writers simply don't have the time or resources to write a full character development story for every single individual portrayed or even for half the supporting cast, they have to focus on the main character - especially since the rest of the team also won't put up with having to quadruple the game's length just to make sure everyone's fleshed out, you have to keep the player interested and having several complex stories overlap each other would just be confusing and time consuming (as well as money consuming).

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45816315]Whether you like it or not, characters in any story tend to either be the protagonist/main focus in which case they get all the attention from the writers, or be a plot-driving/driven side character who's only there to propel the plot forward in a suitable way. The Walking Dead is no exception to that. The main focus in season 1 was Clementine, she was the one to get through the most sensible character development and all other characters are just here to forward that development in some shape or form, and that includes Lee. I understand that you want better stories and writing in your video games (who doesn't) but there are still sensible expectations you should expect to meet in gaming. Writers simply don't have the time or resources to write a full character development story for every single individual portrayed or even for half the supporting cast, they have to focus on the main character - especially since the rest of the team also won't put up with having to quadruple the game's length just to make sure everyone's fleshed out, you have to keep the player interested and having several complex stories overlap each other would just be confusing and time consuming (as well as money consuming).[/QUOTE] Even books, movies and the like follow the idea that the secondary characters are fleshed out to a degree but you focus on the protagonists. Whether that's a singular or plural, anyone whose read a critically acclaimed book will tell you who the main character is very easily. [editline]27th August 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Yahnich;45816782]and why not exactly genuinely curious[/QUOTE] Because Point and Click can very easily lead you down certain roads which gives the writers and developers more liscense to give the characters more definition. Imagine, if you will, that you couldn't make Commander Shepard who you want, and there was no paragon or renegade options and that instead, you just watch him or her make all these choices. P&C remove choice from a game to benefit the story, where as you get more and more open it becomes harder and harder to create fleshed out characters and story lines because the player is more and more likely to give those lines the middle finger. I think the best example we have of effectively dealing with this is Fallout New Vegas, and even that has some major issues story telling wise.

[QUOTE=itisjuly;45811043]Funny thing is, Anita is using videogames to push her propaganda to change your views to hers.[/QUOTE] I dunno what you guys are watching, but I'm not getting that from her videos at all. They are in no way propaganda, they're the opinions of one woman + her team put into video format. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, but the fact that she's bringing all this up [I]to millions of people[/I] is pretty important. Whether or not she manages to change the videogame industry or not is beside the point. She doesn't explicitly say this, but the videos exist to facilitate discussion (hey like what's happening here). She never says "Hey THIS is what they don't want you to think... THIS IS THE TRUTH!" she goes "This is the way [that I believe] it is." Watch these videos as if they're a paper somebody in your class wrote, and you're having a little chat with your friends afterwards. Like, yo, what the hell are we even going to talk about if anyone that has the audacity to take & argue for a relatively untouched perspective is dismissed as being a dictator tryna push PROPAGANDA on us?

Did she really just imply that mutilated corpses are "intended to be sexually titillating to straight male players" just because they're female? I dunno about the men she knows, but I, and I'm pretty sure everybody else, gets the opposite reaction.

why is anita asking for more donations?

[QUOTE=TheJoey;45817605]why is anita asking for more donations?[/QUOTE] Gold parachute in case people finally realize that she's not an intelligent voice for women in gaming?

[QUOTE=milkandcooki;45817245]I dunno what you guys are watching, but I'm not getting that from her videos at all. They are in no way propaganda, they're the opinions of one woman + her team put into video format. I don't necessarily agree with everything she says, but the fact that she's bringing all this up [I]to millions of people[/I] is pretty important. Whether or not she manages to change the videogame industry or not is beside the point. She doesn't explicitly say this, but the videos exist to facilitate discussion (hey like what's happening here). She never says "Hey THIS is what they don't want you to think... THIS IS THE TRUTH!" she goes "This is the way [that I believe] it is." Watch these videos as if they're a paper somebody in your class wrote, and you're having a little chat with your friends afterwards. Like, yo, what the hell are we even going to talk about if anyone that has the audacity to take & argue for a relatively untouched perspective is dismissed as being a dictator tryna push PROPAGANDA on us?[/QUOTE] Like yo, bro. I see what you're saying but you have to see what a bunch of us are saying and that is she cherry picks her examples, ignores the contexts and maybe the context as a whole is sexist as fuck. That'd be a good argument then, but bro, you gotta know that this isn't creating a discussion. This is creating a two player field where only the biggest assholes get their voices heard. And its not like she doesn't cherry pick her arguments for other forms of media. You posted a channel that actually critiqued and tore apart her points in several videos. The discussion is needed, but she's not inducing discussion, being wrong doesn't make discussion. It creates it into a boxing match with neither side winning. Being wrong turns away the intelligent people who can actually have an effect and create guidelines and examples for future developers to listen to.

[QUOTE=Swilly;45817094]Because Point and Click can very easily lead you down certain roads which gives the writers and developers more liscense to give the characters more definition. Imagine, if you will, that you couldn't make Commander Shepard who you want, and there was no paragon or renegade options and that instead, you just watch him or her make all these choices. P&C remove choice from a game to benefit the story, where as you get more and more open it becomes harder and harder to create fleshed out characters and story lines because the player is more and more likely to give those lines the middle finger. I think the best example we have of effectively dealing with this is Fallout New Vegas, and even that has some major issues story telling wise.[/QUOTE] Also in other genres it's more difficult to accommodate both a deep story and good gameplay. In a more action-oriented game, the story has to be written with gameplay in mind, so there always has to be shooting/fighting/etc going on. And you don't really have the time to introduce complex story elements or character development unless you break the rhythm with lengthy cutscenes.

Its a balancing act, just like in movies you have to stick to only parts of dialogue and action that propel the story forward and shots should hold on something unless its important.

"players do not get the option to call emts or an ambulance" This is the feature I've been waiting for.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;45816315] I understand that you want better stories and writing in your video games (who doesn't) but there are still sensible expectations you should expect to meet in gaming. Writers simply don't have the time or resources to write a full character development story for every single individual portrayed or even for half the supporting cast, they have to focus on the main character - especially since the rest of the team also won't put up with having to quadruple the game's length just to make sure everyone's fleshed out, you have to keep the player interested and having several complex stories overlap each other would just be confusing and time consuming (as well as money consuming).[/QUOTE] [B]The Wire[/B] has nearly every single character fully fleshed out to the point that its less a television series and more a documentary that just so happens to involve fictional persons so you're point doesn't really hold. It didn't need to be zombie shlock to evoke emotions or be socially relevant, just show regular urban life and the injustices that you and I feed every single day. Which makes it all the more laughable that TWD gets held up so highly. Just because it has competent writing ([I]not[/I] good, [I]competent[/I]) does [I]not[/I] mean its the pinnacle of art.

[QUOTE=Swilly;45817681]Like yo, bro. I see what you're saying but you have to see what a bunch of us are saying and that is she cherry picks her examples, ignores the contexts and maybe the context as a whole is sexist as fuck. That'd be a good argument then, but bro, you gotta know that this isn't creating a discussion. This is creating a two player field where only the biggest assholes get their voices heard. And its not like she doesn't cherry pick her arguments for other forms of media. You posted a channel that actually critiqued and tore apart her points in several videos. The discussion is needed, but she's not inducing discussion, being wrong doesn't make discussion. It creates it into a boxing match with neither side winning. Being wrong turns away the intelligent people who can actually have an effect and create guidelines and examples for future developers to listen to.[/QUOTE] Her older videos were pretty good since she tackled the motive behind the chosen narratives for gaming. She was less snarky towards them in comparison to her video/music critiques. It's been said numerous times before, but the segment wasn't good since it ignores context. Aside from the fact that advertised features on the game cover and in the game. Their depiction is definitely not a positive portrayal, but the characters aren't designed for anyone to think heavily about. It's why they are background characters. This segment was some weird Jack Thompson-tier reporting. It would be concerning if those themes were easily accessible to youngsters like the "Damsel in Distress" or "Mrs. Male Character", but they aren't. They're only displayed in M-rated games.

[QUOTE=Yahnich;45816782]and why not exactly genuinely curious[/QUOTE] [I]"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."[/I] - John Carmack

[QUOTE=G-Strogg;45824065][I]"Story in a game is like a story in a porn movie. It's expected to be there, but it's not that important."[/I] - John Carmack[/QUOTE] Which was in reference to Doom which had no story and was just about Killing demons from mars

[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;45824075]Which was in reference to Doom which had no story and was just about Killing demons from mars[/QUOTE] Still rings true. If you remove story from a game with good gameplay you're still gonna have a very good game. If the game is mostly story-focused you're just gonna have nothing.