When your livelihood depends on you being outraged, outrage is never in short supply. This blogger is a clown.
So I was wondering, if you know a really effective way to actually make money for me here… you know, since you know so much livelihood via clown blogging and all…
Maybe I can then drop my petty day job as company owner, creative director and game art teacher. Oh and also afford the necessary psychopharmaca to treat that pesky crazy-person-thingy.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your thoughtful insights and cheers.
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
This is a better criticism then claiming the author is either a crazy person or a clown, or that their entire livelihood somehow depends on this
And also- criticizing a different article than the one mentioned in an attempt to disregard an initial argument by way of ad-hominem is pretty bad debate form, dude
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
This is a better criticism then claiming the author is either a crazy person or a clown, or that their entire livelihood somehow depends on this
And also- criticizing a different article than the one mentioned in an attempt to disregard an initial argument by way of ad-hominem is pretty bad debate form, dude
I can actually live quite okay with Arch's and Deebaser's lines here. Nothing to add really (which would not just repeat statements I made in the two Spelunky articles)...
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
Arch, Hedgie mentioned both articles within the past two pages , so I think that puts it in play.
Blogger, I'm not your business manager and while your bragging about your not all that impressive resume might score points with some people. I'm not one of those people. I've never heard of you and have no idea what you've shipped, but if the games you've developed feature women and men, I'm sure someone with enough free time could write up a dissertation about all the problematic things in your games.
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
So basically, 50% of all characters in video games need to be unattractive ethnic women who are all protaganists and all exhibit wholesome, non-stereotypical behaviour.
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
No, the issue is the juxtaposition of violence against animals with violence against women, which is a serious issue - compare the punishment the NFL levelled against Michael Vick versus what punishment they level against a player found to have engaged in domestic violence, for a good example.
I don't know who you are. So which indie game is yours?
Why is this relevant?
I brought it up myself to reply to an ad hominem attack by another forum member. I don't see how his attack and my response relate to the issue of feminism.
Because you're acting like there is some body of work that you have which can be disseminated, which I for one am fully ignorant of. Otherwise all I've got is your blog and your posting here for some reason.
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
No, the issue is the juxtaposition of violence against animals with violence against women, which is a serious issue - compare the punishment the NFL levelled against Michael Vick versus what punishment they level against a player found to have engaged in domestic violence, for a good example.
I think there's interesting room for discussion there.
When you can replace a female archetype (damsel in distress) with an animal, that kind of highlights some problems with that archetype.
I wouldn't criticize the makers of Spelunky over that, because they're the ones doing the highlighting.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
Okay, I'm a bit late for the whole girlfriend discussion, but maybe I can help the discussion a bit with an alternative viewpoint?
From what I can tell, the people saying that this is a problem are coming at this from a position where they are all too well aware that there are issues with females entering and staying in the game community. It's been brought up a few times, but playing with a female avatar and not playing well is an invitation for people to say potentially hurtful and often vaguely sexist things... Even if they don't really mean them to be hurtful. Each little incident is not really that bad on its own, but after a while, you get so tired of it... and it's totally unnecessary. Not being condescending to a female you are playing a game with really isn't that hard (and like I said it's not like everyone is being a total misogynist asshole). It's little offhand comments that to the recipient seem like they're just serving to remind you that you're somehow not as good as guys are... Even when it's completely untrue... Just because you're female.
Coming from this point of view, these little offhand remarks can seem like they're a pretty big deal, because in the context of the previous paragraph, they're a symptom of something that goes on all the time and is totally a big deal, even an individual comment seems harmless.
Now, if you're someone with none of the above experience- maybe you've never played games or really seen or recognized this behaviour when it occurs, you look at the one instance and say "That comment wasn't that bad!". Devoid of the above context, this is in no way wrong. But it's not the one instance that people are angry at, it's this type of thing repeated over and over and over again from many different sources inside the gaming community. This one instance is just something that people can point at and say "this here is an example of sexism, just like the sexism that happens over and over and over and over to women who play games. People should maybe think before they say something that might be read as equating bad/novice play with femaleness instead of equating it to inexperienced players."
On a somewhat related note, I have often been yelled at by my partner for things I believed were trivial, in exactly the same way that this girlfriend comment was argued against above. For the first bit my reaction was to argue, which got me absolutely nowhere. Over the years, I've wizened up and now I recognize that when I am being forcefully presented with something small and insignificant, the correct thing to do is ask "Okay, this was something really small, but you are acting like it's a big deal. What's the context here?". Once I get the reason that whatever little thing is actually a big deal, we can talk it through and make progress.
Edit; and on that note, yes you did, and now others might reply to you.
Sure. Though I still fail to see why it is relevant. I already think, me even reacting to deebaser's ad hominem is nothing more than a derailment of the subjects related to this thread. So, I'm going to refrain to add to this derailment from now.
It's a clash of values, with one side that has gotten on for years being fairly self-assured they don't have skin in this game. Calls for empathy usually only go so far as people can view others behaving rationally and within the values we hold.
For example, I don't particularly empathize with certain Christians who complain that some current public policies are hostile to Christianity.
This.
Why should males refrain from making jokes about gamer girls?
A: Because the jokes make the girls sad / upset / offended.
Yes, but the males don't care about that. So, why should they stop?
A: Because they're being mean!
Yes, and they are aware of that. It's what they want to do. Why should they stop?
A: They're mean evil improperly raised malevolent jerks!
You can call them that, and that's fine. But they're ok with it. Why should they stop?
Is there an actual answer to that question that persons are unwilling to share? Or is it the case that there isn't an actual answer, and we're just trying to get mean people to stop being mean...which is a fruitless endeavor when you think about it.
Translation: I, _J_, believe empathy and decency are worthless. The feelings of other people should not be taken into account, because they are not me, and therefore unworthy of consideration.
Is that about right?
Everything you've said so far is wrong. Yes, hostility and meanness will never be completely eradicated from humanity. That does not mean that we shouldn't strive to treat everyone with decency and equality. Racism is still a huge problem in the world, but it's not as bad as it used to be. This is demonstrably true. The same goes for sexism.
But you're suggesting this isn't true, and that we should just give up. And that's completely wrong. In every way. And the fact that you think that says a lot about the kind of person you are.
FWIW, anjin, I think you had some interesting observations about Spelunky, but I think your criticisms were a bit harsh.
For instance, the very notion of having a damsel in distress is problematic IMO, and it kind of bothers me every time I see it. But I think Spelunky gets points for letting you choose a dude in distress if you want. (I immediately set it to dogs in distress and spent the rest of the game complaining about how pugs are useless.)
Having a token girl character in stereotyped attire is also a bit problematic, but that's worth maybe a sentence, not a whole paragraph.
As for dragging your dude/damsel/dog-in-distress deeper into the caves, I thought that the exits for each level were exactly that - exits. At no point in playing that game did I think, "Hey, they're dragging the dogs with them even deeper!" I think that's a bit of a stretch.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
So basically, 50% of all characters in video games need to be unattractive ethnic women who are all protaganists and all exhibit wholesome, non-stereotypical behaviour.
Otherwise, the game is sexist.
50% is getting ahead of yourself there. Might wanna shoot for a whole percentage point of complex, realistic female characters first.
+1
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
When I was playing Borderlands The First, Frankie thought it looked like fun - it had a cool visual style and a sense of humor and a female character to play. We tried to play some co-op. The game isn't a hard game by most standards, but she's not good at video games and it was just too hard for her, though. She lost interest and quit.
While making no broad statements about the relative competencies of women and video games, in my specific context, a "girlfriend mode" would have been great.
been playing some fallout and mulling over stuff learned in my summer psych course:
i think there's a big, not-easily-noticed distinction between perception and presentation; presentation is an outward thing, perception is an internal thing. where a lot of media goes wrong is ignoring perception in favor of presentation. it's understandable, though, because perception is very subjective and variable. so they go with the lowest common denominator, presentation.
let's say a new movie is coming out starring jessica alba. now, i don't have a problem with jessica alba, i know a lot of people find her incredibly attractive, but she looks too much like my sister and so she doesn't do it for me. intellectually, i can see she's very pretty and such, but there's not going to be a biological response, ever.
off to marketing: how are they going to show her in this movie? well, they could leave ms. alba in her normal attire and rely on her natural charm and acting skill to bring out her legions of admirers. that would be relying on the audience's perception of her. Alternately, they could have her show off a lot of skin, use a lot of low-angle booty shots, and focus on conforming her to a predefined presentation: the hot babe. it's an easy shortcut to a more universal response.
our minds loooooove shortcuts, but they're rarely healthy for society.
the problem is there's too much relying on presentation in videogames. the protagonist is a shortcut; we know as soon as we see him that he's a grizzled tough guy who will get the job done. the women are a shortcut; we know as soon as we see them that they're there to get rescued etc.
fallout 3 is promising, though. in fallout 3, a large majority of the random folks you meet have a 50/50 chance of being male or female. also, there's not a major difference in appearances between genders - society has collapsed, and everyone's wearing burlap sacks. or power armor, whatever. the point is that characters have a chance to grow on you and appeal to you based on your interactions with them, not outward appearance. that's relying on perception. if i do a quest for moira in megaton, it's because i like her quirky personality, not because she's got the biggest breasts and is wearing a bikini.
if you're working with an existing IP, there's not a whole lot you can do about gender representation - see warhammer 40k or the witcher series. but if you're starting something new, or have any degree of creative control, it's very important to skip the shorthand and WORK for your likable characters. if you want a space marine, fine, make a space marine. but don't rely on the existing presentation of that character and just coast. make a genuine dude who happens to BE a space marine.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
So basically, 50% of all characters in video games need to be unattractive ethnic women who are all protaganists and all exhibit wholesome, non-stereotypical behaviour.
Otherwise, the game is sexist.
50% is getting ahead of yourself there. Might wanna shoot for a whole percentage point of complex, realistic female characters first.
To be fair, I can only think of maybe a handful of realistic, complex *male* characters in videogames. Most characters in most games have very little depth and are not written well-enough to be realistic in the least. I'm not saying there isn't an obvious bias towards males having more depth, but I'd settle for any human characters with real depth at this point.
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
So basically, 50% of all characters in video games need to be unattractive ethnic women who are all protaganists and all exhibit wholesome, non-stereotypical behaviour.
Otherwise, the game is sexist.
50% is getting ahead of yourself there. Might wanna shoot for a whole percentage point of complex, realistic female characters first.
Which is good, and isn't going to happen over night, sadly. But when progress is seen, it'd be great to acknowledge it as such, rather than stamp our collective feet and say "not good enough!".
It's a clash of values, with one side that has gotten on for years being fairly self-assured they don't have skin in this game. Calls for empathy usually only go so far as people can view others behaving rationally and within the values we hold.
For example, I don't particularly empathize with certain Christians who complain that some current public policies are hostile to Christianity.
This.
Why should males refrain from making jokes about gamer girls?
A: Because the jokes make the girls sad / upset / offended.
Yes, but the males don't care about that. So, why should they stop?
A: Because they're being mean!
Yes, and they are aware of that. It's what they want to do. Why should they stop?
A: They're mean evil improperly raised malevolent jerks!
You can call them that, and that's fine. But they're ok with it. Why should they stop?
Is there an actual answer to that question that persons are unwilling to share? Or is it the case that there isn't an actual answer, and we're just trying to get mean people to stop being mean...which is a fruitless endeavor when you think about it.
Translation: I, _J_, believe empathy and decency are worthless. The feelings of other people should not be taken into account, because they are not me, and therefore unworthy of consideration.
Is that about right?
Everything you've said so far is wrong. Yes, hostility and meanness will never be completely eradicated from humanity. That does not mean that we shouldn't strive to treat everyone with decency and equality. Racism is still a huge problem in the world, but it's not as bad as it used to be. This is demonstrably true. The same goes for sexism.
But you're suggesting this isn't true, and that we should just give up. And that's completely wrong. In every way. And the fact that you think that says a lot about the kind of person you are.
But Spex, moral relativity. Case closed, thread over.
It's a clash of values, with one side that has gotten on for years being fairly self-assured they don't have skin in this game. Calls for empathy usually only go so far as people can view others behaving rationally and within the values we hold.
For example, I don't particularly empathize with certain Christians who complain that some current public policies are hostile to Christianity.
This.
Why should males refrain from making jokes about gamer girls?
A: Because the jokes make the girls sad / upset / offended.
Yes, but the males don't care about that. So, why should they stop?
A: Because they're being mean!
Yes, and they are aware of that. It's what they want to do. Why should they stop?
A: They're mean evil improperly raised malevolent jerks!
You can call them that, and that's fine. But they're ok with it. Why should they stop?
Is there an actual answer to that question that persons are unwilling to share? Or is it the case that there isn't an actual answer, and we're just trying to get mean people to stop being mean...which is a fruitless endeavor when you think about it.
Translation: I, _J_, believe empathy and decency are worthless. The feelings of other people should not be taken into account, because they are not me, and therefore unworthy of consideration.
Is that about right?
Everything you've said so far is wrong. Yes, hostility and meanness will never be completely eradicated from humanity. That does not mean that we shouldn't strive to treat everyone with decency and equality. Racism is still a huge problem in the world, but it's not as bad as it used to be. This is demonstrably true. The same goes for sexism.
But you're suggesting this isn't true, and that we should just give up. And that's completely wrong. In every way. And the fact that you think that says a lot about the kind of person you are.
But Spex, moral relativity. Case closed, thread over.
Oh of course, how could I forget moral relativity. Rest assured that I have now seen the light. Say! Are you up for some casual marginalization of minorities?
FWIW, anjin, I think you had some interesting observations about Spelunky, but I think your criticisms were a bit harsh.
For instance, the very notion of having a damsel in distress is problematic IMO, and it kind of bothers me every time I see it. But I think Spelunky gets points for letting you choose a dude in distress if you want. (I immediately set it to dogs in distress and spent the rest of the game complaining about how pugs are useless.)
Having a token girl character in stereotyped attire is also a bit problematic, but that's worth maybe a sentence, not a whole paragraph.
As for dragging your dude/damsel/dog-in-distress deeper into the caves, I thought that the exits for each level were exactly that - exits. At no point in playing that game did I think, "Hey, they're dragging the dogs with them even deeper!" I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Hey...
I understand that I applied a very sensitive threshold with my criticism of Spelunky and I know a lot of people who's opinion I value to disagree with me on many points.
Your personal judgement on the individual aspects you mentioned is totally valid. I was exploring the connotations of Spelunky's gameplay narrative and visual design and wanted to display how easy it could become problematic. In the comments to my second spelunky article I already admitted, that the title of the first one "It's not okay, Spelunky" is too emotionally charged and sensationalist. http://howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com/?p=6506&cpage=1#comment-42250
I still stand by my analysis of the strong sexist connotations the game contains, though I understand if it comes off as nitpicky.
When I was playing Borderlands The First, Frankie thought it looked like fun - it had a cool visual style and a sense of humor and a female character to play. We tried to play some co-op. The game isn't a hard game by most standards, but she's not good at video games and it was just too hard for her, though. She lost interest and quit.
While making no broad statements about the relative competencies of women and video games, in my specific context, a "girlfriend mode" would have been great.
The idea of having a "learning mode" or "easy mode" or "introductory mode" is actually a really good one, and I totally approve. Heck, ALOT of games are guilty of having insufficient or no tutorial and just flat out assuming that "you've played games like this so I shouldn't have to tell you how this stuff works", which is a huge barrier to new players of all kinds. So yeah, nobody is saying this is a bad idea, or that it might not apply to alot of people who happen to be girlfriends of gamers who are not experienced gamers themselves.
The thing is, some people (say people who would really rather a "super-nightmare hard mode" but happen to be a girlfriend of someone) just might not approve of calling it "girlfriend mode", due to how shitty the community has treated them at times. (See my post above for further context). There are plenty of ways of saying this that are not offensive to people like that.
It's a clash of values, with one side that has gotten on for years being fairly self-assured they don't have skin in this game. Calls for empathy usually only go so far as people can view others behaving rationally and within the values we hold.
For example, I don't particularly empathize with certain Christians who complain that some current public policies are hostile to Christianity.
This.
Why should males refrain from making jokes about gamer girls?
A: Because the jokes make the girls sad / upset / offended.
Yes, but the males don't care about that. So, why should they stop?
A: Because they're being mean!
Yes, and they are aware of that. It's what they want to do. Why should they stop?
A: They're mean evil improperly raised malevolent jerks!
You can call them that, and that's fine. But they're ok with it. Why should they stop?
Is there an actual answer to that question that persons are unwilling to share? Or is it the case that there isn't an actual answer, and we're just trying to get mean people to stop being mean...which is a fruitless endeavor when you think about it.
Translation: I, _J_, believe empathy and decency are worthless. The feelings of other people should not be taken into account, because they are not me, and therefore unworthy of consideration.
Is that about right?
Everything you've said so far is wrong. Yes, hostility and meanness will never be completely eradicated from humanity. That does not mean that we shouldn't strive to treat everyone with decency and equality. Racism is still a huge problem in the world, but it's not as bad as it used to be. This is demonstrably true. The same goes for sexism.
But you're suggesting this isn't true, and that we should just give up. And that's completely wrong. In every way. And the fact that you think that says a lot about the kind of person you are.
But Spex, moral relativity. Case closed, thread over.
Oh of course, how could I forget moral relativity. Rest assured that I have now seen the light. Say! Are you up for some casual marginalization of minorities?
I hear tell that that sort of thing is a 'wrong' notion, but hell, I'm in a position to effect it while reaping no tangible repercussion. You know what I'd like to say to the plights of some of those jazz fellows? "So what?" That would be a laugh!
speaking of borderlands (which i have played a positively unhealthy amount of)
it wasn't until the expansions that gearbox decided to get into wacky representations of women. sure, tannis was cuckoo, but of the (admittedly few) women in the game, most had pretty sensible presentations. didn't notice any outlandish proportions or overly out-there costume choices
with moxxie, you got both in spades. narratively her appearance makes sense, but later in knoxx is where gearbox starts to get into some other stuff: moxxie isn't the woman you have to rescue, that's athena, a competent commando. ignoring for a second the gender dimorphism of atlas troops, athena is the woman who pretty much directs the entire DLC.
there was also a sidequest someone snuck in that had you removing some misogynist graffiti...
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
So basically, 50% of all characters in video games need to be unattractive ethnic women who are all protaganists and all exhibit wholesome, non-stereotypical behaviour.
Otherwise, the game is sexist.
50% is getting ahead of yourself there. Might wanna shoot for a whole percentage point of complex, realistic female characters first.
To be fair, I can only think of maybe a handful of realistic, complex *male* characters in videogames. Most characters in most games have very little depth and are not written well-enough to be realistic in the least. I'm not saying there isn't an obvious bias towards males having more depth, but I'd settle for any human characters with real depth at this point.
Well, in this case, I mean "realistic" in terms of their characterization specifically rather than their abilities and mechanics and so on. There's also an issue tangent to this thread about how capable mainstream game writing is overall, but I can think of a lot of male characters, even particularly exaggerated ones, that have a foundation in essentially real conceptions of men as individuals. I imagine weighing even the unsuccessful attempts at realistic portrayal of men versus women would be telling.
Aneurhythmia on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
There have been a few good female videogame characters. Jade from BGAE was cool. Whatsername from Mirror's Edge they did their best with (the game's narrative was not great, so it wasn't as successful as it could have been, but the character was pretty solid). Apparently they're trying to reboot Lara Croft in a non-stupid manner.
And, yeah, most VG characters (male and female) are terrible because most video games have terrible writing and are are conceived with teenage boys in mind. There is definitely room for improvement all around.
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
So basically, 50% of all characters in video games need to be unattractive ethnic women who are all protaganists and all exhibit wholesome, non-stereotypical behaviour.
Otherwise, the game is sexist.
50% is getting ahead of yourself there. Might wanna shoot for a whole percentage point of complex, realistic female characters first.
To be fair, I can only think of maybe a handful of realistic, complex *male* characters in videogames. Most characters in most games have very little depth and are not written well-enough to be realistic in the least. I'm not saying there isn't an obvious bias towards males having more depth, but I'd settle for any human characters with real depth at this point.
Well, in this case, I mean "realistic" in terms of their characterization specifically rather than their abilities and mechanics and so on. There's also an issue tangent to this thread about how capable mainstream game writing is overall, but I can think of a lot of male characters, even particularly exaggerated ones, that have a foundation in essentially real conceptions of men as individuals. I imagine weighing even the unsuccessful attempts at realistic portrayal of men versus women would be telling.
I feel like most men in videogames are about as realistically written and portrayed as the average action movie hero is in Hollywood. I definitely wouldn't say most characters I've played in a game where the main character was pre-written (as opposed to something like Skyrim, Fallout, or other similar titles) were men I could relate or see something that represented myself in.
Again, I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but rather that on at least some level, the issue is that games in general are poorly written and fail to represent reality for anyone, and that just makes it even more challenging to do well for women (especially given their unfortunate scarcity in game development).
When I was playing Borderlands The First, Frankie thought it looked like fun - it had a cool visual style and a sense of humor and a female character to play. We tried to play some co-op. The game isn't a hard game by most standards, but she's not good at video games and it was just too hard for her, though. She lost interest and quit.
While making no broad statements about the relative competencies of women and video games, in my specific context, a "girlfriend mode" would have been great.
It's funny to me because
1) My girlfriend wants to play Borderlands with me
but
2) She's inexperienced at first-person shooters and sometimes gets disoriented in 3D environments
so
3) A "girlfriend mode" would be nice
But even as far as stereotypes are true, we have to move past them for them to stop being true. That means tactfully finding non-stereotyped ways of describing them. Calling Easy Mode "Girlfriend Mode" doesn't just cater to girlfriends, it also perpetuates the idea that girlfriends need easy modes, which perpetuates the perception of girls being second-class citizens in gamerville.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
FWIW, anjin, I think you had some interesting observations about Spelunky, but I think your criticisms were a bit harsh.
For instance, the very notion of having a damsel in distress is problematic IMO, and it kind of bothers me every time I see it. But I think Spelunky gets points for letting you choose a dude in distress if you want. (I immediately set it to dogs in distress and spent the rest of the game complaining about how pugs are useless.)
Having a token girl character in stereotyped attire is also a bit problematic, but that's worth maybe a sentence, not a whole paragraph.
As for dragging your dude/damsel/dog-in-distress deeper into the caves, I thought that the exits for each level were exactly that - exits. At no point in playing that game did I think, "Hey, they're dragging the dogs with them even deeper!" I think that's a bit of a stretch.
Hey...
I understand that I applied a very sensitive threshold with my criticism of Spelunky and I know a lot of people who's opinion I value to disagree with me on many points.
Your personal judgement on the individual aspects you mentioned is totally valid. I was exploring the connotations of Spelunky's gameplay narrative and visual design and wanted to display how easy it could become problematic. In the comments to my second spelunky article I already admitted, that the title of the first one "It's not okay, Spelunky" is too emotionally charged and sensationalist. http://howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com/?p=6506&cpage=1#comment-42250
I still stand by my analysis of the strong sexist connotations the game contains, though I understand if it comes off as nitpicky.
It's cool. I just wanted to voice some feedback directly to you, since you're here and all. I wasn't going to haul my pitchfork to your comments section or anything.
I didn't realize you had a follow-up article. I'll give that a read.
Oh, hey. Thanks for being one of the voices talking about these issues. :^:
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
When I was playing Borderlands The First, Frankie thought it looked like fun - it had a cool visual style and a sense of humor and a female character to play. We tried to play some co-op. The game isn't a hard game by most standards, but she's not good at video games and it was just too hard for her, though. She lost interest and quit.
While making no broad statements about the relative competencies of women and video games, in my specific context, a "girlfriend mode" would have been great.
It's funny to me because
1) My girlfriend wants to play Borderlands with me
but
2) She's inexperienced at first-person shooters and sometimes gets disoriented in 3D environments
so
3) A "girlfriend mode" would be nice
But even as far as stereotypes are true, we have to move past them for them to stop being true. That means tactfully finding non-stereotyped ways of describing them. Calling Easy Mode "Girlfriend Mode" doesn't just cater to girlfriends, it also perpetuates the idea that girlfriends need easy modes, which perpetuates the perception of girls being second-class citizens in gamerville.
It's funny to me because
1) My girlfriend wants to play Borderlands with me
but
2) She's inexperienced at first-person shooters and sometimes gets disoriented in 3D environments
so
3) A "girlfriend mode" would be nice
But even as far as stereotypes are true, we have to move past them for them to stop being true. That means tactfully finding non-stereotyped ways of describing them. Calling Easy Mode "Girlfriend Mode" doesn't just cater to girlfriends, it also perpetuates the idea that girlfriends need easy modes, which perpetuates the perception of girls being second-class citizens in gamerville.
Well, having a damsel is sexist. Not having a damsel is even more sexist, becaused marginalized people are being treated just the same as marginalized animals! Having a female character is also problematic because she's otherwise generic, she's not Indian or bearded or the default heteronormative white male. They're XBLA characters. I've nver played this particular game, but I doubt there's substantial character development for everyone except pigtails. It's silly.
No, the issue is the juxtaposition of violence against animals with violence against women, which is a serious issue - compare the punishment the NFL levelled against Michael Vick versus what punishment they level against a player found to have engaged in domestic violence, for a good example.
Michael Vick is still playing after a felony conviction wherein he went to prison for a crime that was shocking and was exhaustively reported by sportscenter. I'm not aware of a comparable player that returned to the league after going away for domestic abuse.
If so, both players should have been expelled. Plaxico Burress should also be expelled despite his Super Bowl winning touchdown for the best football club in the goddamn world. You will get zero argument from me that criminals and douchebags should be purged from the sport.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
Aren't there supposed to be infractions for that kinda stuff? I mean I know I can get downright mean spirited and confrontational from time to time, but I've never gotten personal with any of you have I? Just outright said any of you are awful people, and I feel sorry for anyone who has to suffer your existence?
When I was playing Borderlands The First, Frankie thought it looked like fun - it had a cool visual style and a sense of humor and a female character to play. We tried to play some co-op. The game isn't a hard game by most standards, but she's not good at video games and it was just too hard for her, though. She lost interest and quit.
While making no broad statements about the relative competencies of women and video games, in my specific context, a "girlfriend mode" would have been great.
It's funny to me because
1) My girlfriend wants to play Borderlands with me
but
2) She's inexperienced at first-person shooters and sometimes gets disoriented in 3D environments
so
3) A "girlfriend mode" would be nice
But even as far as stereotypes are true, we have to move past them for them to stop being true. That means tactfully finding non-stereotyped ways of describing them. Calling Easy Mode "Girlfriend Mode" doesn't just cater to girlfriends, it also perpetuates the idea that girlfriends need easy modes, which perpetuates the perception of girls being second-class citizens in gamerville.
Here's an alternative reply that I thought of instantly when I read Irond Will's post.
When I was playing Borderlands The First, Lars thought it looked like fun - it had a cool visual style and a sense of humor and a middle-aged male character to play. We tried to play some co-op. The game isn't a hard game by most standards, but he's not good at video games and it was just too hard for him, though. He lost interest and quit.
While making no broad statements about the relative competencies of fathers and video games, in my specific context, a "dad mode" would have been great.
So not only is it that you might be are unnecessarily stereotyping girlfriends, you might also alienate other people who would have problems with the game, even though they don't happen to have a vagina. Or maybe you want me to tell my father to choose "girlfriend mode"! Maybe you want me to wink at him, too! You silly goose!
Posts
… the crazy clown blogger here.
So I was wondering, if you know a really effective way to actually make money for me here… you know, since you know so much livelihood via clown blogging and all…
Maybe I can then drop my petty day job as company owner, creative director and game art teacher. Oh and also afford the necessary psychopharmaca to treat that pesky crazy-person-thingy.
Anyway, thanks a lot for your thoughtful insights and cheers.
*sigh*
This is a better criticism then claiming the author is either a crazy person or a clown, or that their entire livelihood somehow depends on this
And also- criticizing a different article than the one mentioned in an attempt to disregard an initial argument by way of ad-hominem is pretty bad debate form, dude
I can actually live quite okay with Arch's and Deebaser's lines here. Nothing to add really (which would not just repeat statements I made in the two Spelunky articles)...
Thanks.
Blogger, I'm not your business manager and while your bragging about your not all that impressive resume might score points with some people. I'm not one of those people. I've never heard of you and have no idea what you've shipped, but if the games you've developed feature women and men, I'm sure someone with enough free time could write up a dissertation about all the problematic things in your games.
I'm sure of that myself and when someone actually does that, I'm looking forward to learn and to improve. You know, that accepting criticism thing.
Anyway, back to more important things than this Deebaser hi-jinx... sorting socks or sumfin...
So basically, 50% of all characters in video games need to be unattractive ethnic women who are all protaganists and all exhibit wholesome, non-stereotypical behaviour.
Otherwise, the game is sexist.
No, the issue is the juxtaposition of violence against animals with violence against women, which is a serious issue - compare the punishment the NFL levelled against Michael Vick versus what punishment they level against a player found to have engaged in domestic violence, for a good example.
I don't know who you are. So which indie game is yours?
Why is this relevant?
I brought it up myself to reply to an ad hominem attack by another forum member. I don't see how his attack and my response relate to the issue of feminism.
Otherwise all I've got is your blog and your posting here for some reason.
Edit; and on that note, yes you did, and now others might reply to you.
That's a correct observation. That's all you got.
I think there's interesting room for discussion there.
When you can replace a female archetype (damsel in distress) with an animal, that kind of highlights some problems with that archetype.
I wouldn't criticize the makers of Spelunky over that, because they're the ones doing the highlighting.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
From what I can tell, the people saying that this is a problem are coming at this from a position where they are all too well aware that there are issues with females entering and staying in the game community. It's been brought up a few times, but playing with a female avatar and not playing well is an invitation for people to say potentially hurtful and often vaguely sexist things... Even if they don't really mean them to be hurtful. Each little incident is not really that bad on its own, but after a while, you get so tired of it... and it's totally unnecessary. Not being condescending to a female you are playing a game with really isn't that hard (and like I said it's not like everyone is being a total misogynist asshole). It's little offhand comments that to the recipient seem like they're just serving to remind you that you're somehow not as good as guys are... Even when it's completely untrue... Just because you're female.
Coming from this point of view, these little offhand remarks can seem like they're a pretty big deal, because in the context of the previous paragraph, they're a symptom of something that goes on all the time and is totally a big deal, even an individual comment seems harmless.
Now, if you're someone with none of the above experience- maybe you've never played games or really seen or recognized this behaviour when it occurs, you look at the one instance and say "That comment wasn't that bad!". Devoid of the above context, this is in no way wrong. But it's not the one instance that people are angry at, it's this type of thing repeated over and over and over again from many different sources inside the gaming community. This one instance is just something that people can point at and say "this here is an example of sexism, just like the sexism that happens over and over and over and over to women who play games. People should maybe think before they say something that might be read as equating bad/novice play with femaleness instead of equating it to inexperienced players."
Sure. Though I still fail to see why it is relevant. I already think, me even reacting to deebaser's ad hominem is nothing more than a derailment of the subjects related to this thread. So, I'm going to refrain to add to this derailment from now.
Translation: I, _J_, believe empathy and decency are worthless. The feelings of other people should not be taken into account, because they are not me, and therefore unworthy of consideration.
Is that about right?
Everything you've said so far is wrong. Yes, hostility and meanness will never be completely eradicated from humanity. That does not mean that we shouldn't strive to treat everyone with decency and equality. Racism is still a huge problem in the world, but it's not as bad as it used to be. This is demonstrably true. The same goes for sexism.
But you're suggesting this isn't true, and that we should just give up. And that's completely wrong. In every way. And the fact that you think that says a lot about the kind of person you are.
For instance, the very notion of having a damsel in distress is problematic IMO, and it kind of bothers me every time I see it. But I think Spelunky gets points for letting you choose a dude in distress if you want. (I immediately set it to dogs in distress and spent the rest of the game complaining about how pugs are useless.)
Having a token girl character in stereotyped attire is also a bit problematic, but that's worth maybe a sentence, not a whole paragraph.
As for dragging your dude/damsel/dog-in-distress deeper into the caves, I thought that the exits for each level were exactly that - exits. At no point in playing that game did I think, "Hey, they're dragging the dogs with them even deeper!" I think that's a bit of a stretch.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
50% is getting ahead of yourself there. Might wanna shoot for a whole percentage point of complex, realistic female characters first.
While making no broad statements about the relative competencies of women and video games, in my specific context, a "girlfriend mode" would have been great.
i think there's a big, not-easily-noticed distinction between perception and presentation; presentation is an outward thing, perception is an internal thing. where a lot of media goes wrong is ignoring perception in favor of presentation. it's understandable, though, because perception is very subjective and variable. so they go with the lowest common denominator, presentation.
let's say a new movie is coming out starring jessica alba. now, i don't have a problem with jessica alba, i know a lot of people find her incredibly attractive, but she looks too much like my sister and so she doesn't do it for me. intellectually, i can see she's very pretty and such, but there's not going to be a biological response, ever.
off to marketing: how are they going to show her in this movie? well, they could leave ms. alba in her normal attire and rely on her natural charm and acting skill to bring out her legions of admirers. that would be relying on the audience's perception of her. Alternately, they could have her show off a lot of skin, use a lot of low-angle booty shots, and focus on conforming her to a predefined presentation: the hot babe. it's an easy shortcut to a more universal response.
our minds loooooove shortcuts, but they're rarely healthy for society.
the problem is there's too much relying on presentation in videogames. the protagonist is a shortcut; we know as soon as we see him that he's a grizzled tough guy who will get the job done. the women are a shortcut; we know as soon as we see them that they're there to get rescued etc.
fallout 3 is promising, though. in fallout 3, a large majority of the random folks you meet have a 50/50 chance of being male or female. also, there's not a major difference in appearances between genders - society has collapsed, and everyone's wearing burlap sacks. or power armor, whatever. the point is that characters have a chance to grow on you and appeal to you based on your interactions with them, not outward appearance. that's relying on perception. if i do a quest for moira in megaton, it's because i like her quirky personality, not because she's got the biggest breasts and is wearing a bikini.
if you're working with an existing IP, there's not a whole lot you can do about gender representation - see warhammer 40k or the witcher series. but if you're starting something new, or have any degree of creative control, it's very important to skip the shorthand and WORK for your likable characters. if you want a space marine, fine, make a space marine. but don't rely on the existing presentation of that character and just coast. make a genuine dude who happens to BE a space marine.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
To be fair, I can only think of maybe a handful of realistic, complex *male* characters in videogames. Most characters in most games have very little depth and are not written well-enough to be realistic in the least. I'm not saying there isn't an obvious bias towards males having more depth, but I'd settle for any human characters with real depth at this point.
Which is good, and isn't going to happen over night, sadly. But when progress is seen, it'd be great to acknowledge it as such, rather than stamp our collective feet and say "not good enough!".
But Spex, moral relativity. Case closed, thread over.
Oh of course, how could I forget moral relativity. Rest assured that I have now seen the light. Say! Are you up for some casual marginalization of minorities?
Hey...
I understand that I applied a very sensitive threshold with my criticism of Spelunky and I know a lot of people who's opinion I value to disagree with me on many points.
Your personal judgement on the individual aspects you mentioned is totally valid. I was exploring the connotations of Spelunky's gameplay narrative and visual design and wanted to display how easy it could become problematic. In the comments to my second spelunky article I already admitted, that the title of the first one "It's not okay, Spelunky" is too emotionally charged and sensationalist.
http://howtonotsuckatgamedesign.com/?p=6506&cpage=1#comment-42250
I still stand by my analysis of the strong sexist connotations the game contains, though I understand if it comes off as nitpicky.
The idea of having a "learning mode" or "easy mode" or "introductory mode" is actually a really good one, and I totally approve. Heck, ALOT of games are guilty of having insufficient or no tutorial and just flat out assuming that "you've played games like this so I shouldn't have to tell you how this stuff works", which is a huge barrier to new players of all kinds. So yeah, nobody is saying this is a bad idea, or that it might not apply to alot of people who happen to be girlfriends of gamers who are not experienced gamers themselves.
The thing is, some people (say people who would really rather a "super-nightmare hard mode" but happen to be a girlfriend of someone) just might not approve of calling it "girlfriend mode", due to how shitty the community has treated them at times. (See my post above for further context). There are plenty of ways of saying this that are not offensive to people like that.
I hear tell that that sort of thing is a 'wrong' notion, but hell, I'm in a position to effect it while reaping no tangible repercussion. You know what I'd like to say to the plights of some of those jazz fellows? "So what?" That would be a laugh!
it wasn't until the expansions that gearbox decided to get into wacky representations of women. sure, tannis was cuckoo, but of the (admittedly few) women in the game, most had pretty sensible presentations. didn't notice any outlandish proportions or overly out-there costume choices
with moxxie, you got both in spades. narratively her appearance makes sense, but later in knoxx is where gearbox starts to get into some other stuff: moxxie isn't the woman you have to rescue, that's athena, a competent commando. ignoring for a second the gender dimorphism of atlas troops, athena is the woman who pretty much directs the entire DLC.
there was also a sidequest someone snuck in that had you removing some misogynist graffiti...
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Well, in this case, I mean "realistic" in terms of their characterization specifically rather than their abilities and mechanics and so on. There's also an issue tangent to this thread about how capable mainstream game writing is overall, but I can think of a lot of male characters, even particularly exaggerated ones, that have a foundation in essentially real conceptions of men as individuals. I imagine weighing even the unsuccessful attempts at realistic portrayal of men versus women would be telling.
And, yeah, most VG characters (male and female) are terrible because most video games have terrible writing and are are conceived with teenage boys in mind. There is definitely room for improvement all around.
I feel like most men in videogames are about as realistically written and portrayed as the average action movie hero is in Hollywood. I definitely wouldn't say most characters I've played in a game where the main character was pre-written (as opposed to something like Skyrim, Fallout, or other similar titles) were men I could relate or see something that represented myself in.
Again, I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but rather that on at least some level, the issue is that games in general are poorly written and fail to represent reality for anyone, and that just makes it even more challenging to do well for women (especially given their unfortunate scarcity in game development).
It's funny to me because
1) My girlfriend wants to play Borderlands with me
but
2) She's inexperienced at first-person shooters and sometimes gets disoriented in 3D environments
so
3) A "girlfriend mode" would be nice
But even as far as stereotypes are true, we have to move past them for them to stop being true. That means tactfully finding non-stereotyped ways of describing them. Calling Easy Mode "Girlfriend Mode" doesn't just cater to girlfriends, it also perpetuates the idea that girlfriends need easy modes, which perpetuates the perception of girls being second-class citizens in gamerville.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
It's cool. I just wanted to voice some feedback directly to you, since you're here and all. I wasn't going to haul my pitchfork to your comments section or anything.
I didn't realize you had a follow-up article. I'll give that a read.
Oh, hey. Thanks for being one of the voices talking about these issues. :^:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes
Thank.
You.
Sir.
Michael Vick is still playing after a felony conviction wherein he went to prison for a crime that was shocking and was exhaustively reported by sportscenter. I'm not aware of a comparable player that returned to the league after going away for domestic abuse.
If so, both players should have been expelled. Plaxico Burress should also be expelled despite his Super Bowl winning touchdown for the best football club in the goddamn world. You will get zero argument from me that criminals and douchebags should be purged from the sport.
What's the reasoning behind including the Harley Quinn shot?
"This is the female model in Arma 2's DayZ mod
This is the female model in the knock off that is in developement WarZ
Here's an alternative reply that I thought of instantly when I read Irond Will's post.
When I was playing Borderlands The First, Lars thought it looked like fun - it had a cool visual style and a sense of humor and a middle-aged male character to play. We tried to play some co-op. The game isn't a hard game by most standards, but he's not good at video games and it was just too hard for him, though. He lost interest and quit.
While making no broad statements about the relative competencies of fathers and video games, in my specific context, a "dad mode" would have been great.
So not only is it that you might be are unnecessarily stereotyping girlfriends, you might also alienate other people who would have problems with the game, even though they don't happen to have a vagina. Or maybe you want me to tell my father to choose "girlfriend mode"! Maybe you want me to wink at him, too! You silly goose!