I'm female and I'd prefer to play the second one based on those pictures, though it's hard to say for sure without seeing her from the front. I don't really care for military shooters that aren't TF2 though.
I don't see what's sexist about either picture, other than that one features military characters while the other features civilians (which makes sense in a zombie mod.)
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
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!
i didn't stereotype girlfriends. i have a girlfriend who is bad at video games. i'm not really sure where your hostility is coming from, and i don't really think I'd regard a "dad mode" as particularly hurtful or offensive. would you?
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!
i didn't stereotype girlfriends. i have a girlfriend who is bad at video games. i'm not really sure where your hostility is coming from, and i don't really think I'd regard a "dad mode" as particularly hurtful or offensive. would you?
Well, "Dads" have privilege, so it can't be hurtful/offensive.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
I sent this in a message to anji, but I think it's relevant to the current conversations.
"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
"
is this problematic? the character in the second picture doesn't strike me as especially lascivious or stereotyped, though admittedly the first character is aggressively nongendered
What's the reasoning behind including the Harley Quinn shot?
I'm not sure what the point of this question is
Are you going to try and do the thing where you invalidate the entire piece because of one (potentially) ill-chosen example?
I haven't played the game, but I do know that Harley's depiction in the Arkham games has already been criticized, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were other sexism problems with her in the franchise
That conversation is a picture-perfect example of the problem many people have with feminists. This is the sort of thing from which unfortunately accurate stereotypes about feminism arise. This is the sort of nonsense I have no desire to be associated with. There is literally no barrier between "I think that guy said something that could possibly be interpreted as sexist if I looked at it in the wrong light" and "MAKE HIM SUFFER!"
This is an extremely unfortunate way to define feminism. Is this really what you're trying to display yourself as? You just broke out the goddamn torches and pitchforks over an offhand comment that accurately describes a real thing that happens. What the hell, guys?
Sure, "girlfriend mode" is a tongue in cheek joke, but every joke has a premise.
The underlying assumption of "girlfriend mode" is that gaming is a boys' club and women are too stupid and incompetent to be a part of it. That's why people are annoyed.
The far more obvious underlying assumption is the stereotype of a guy not really being able to get his girlfriend into FPS gaming. That's a fairly common gamer injoke, and gaming is practically famous for its injokes.
Getting up in arms about it is the very definition of overreaction.
"women are too stupid and incompetent to be a part of it"
"guy not really being able to get his girlfriend into FPS gaming"
If the answer to the 2nd line is "make it easier", then you're saying line 1.
The answer to the 2nd line is NOT gameplay, it's marketing and community management.
Have you ever had a relationship where someone wasn't as interested in something as you, but still wanted to share it with you? It has nothing to do with innate ability. It has to do with time and interest. My girlfriend would never in a million years be as interested in board games as I am. So we play easier games and everyone has fun. I would never in a million years have the time to go hiking or do yoga like she has, so when we do those things together, we do easier hikes or easier yoga classes.
I'm not saying she, or by extension, all women, suck at board games. And she's not saying I, or by extension all men suck at hiking and yoga. We are simply recognizing where our enthusiasm for challenge in each others hobbies is deficient.
Yes I have, both me and my wife have hobbies that we share interest in, and hobbies that we don't. However when we go horse riding (she did show jumping, I'm terrified of them. I saw one try to eat a puppy once!), the riding instructor doesn't greet me, them immediately take my hand (sympathetically), and lead me to a tiny pony because obviously as a boyfriend I can't possibly know which end of the horse points up.
There's nothing wrong with having an easy mode for a game, assuming that it's needed by a specific group based purely on gender is.
Seriously, it tried to eat a puppy!
But that is not at all what you said. You presented a binary choice.
"women are too stupid and incompetent to be a part of it"
"guy not really being able to get his girlfriend into FPS gaming"
And then you directly equated saying an easy mode is the same as saying women are stupid.
If the answer to the 2nd line is "make it easier", then you're saying line 1.
You completely stripped all the context out. You directly equated the riding instructor, under any circumstances or context, offering you an easier option, as saying you are too stupid and incompetent to ride horses.
But all this is pedantic.
The fact of the matter is, guys trying to get their girlfriends to play games and failing is an extremely common shared experience most gamers have. Acknowledging it isn't sexism. It would be sexism if they extended that to saying all girlfriends suck at games. Or all women suck at games. Or that everyone who sucks at games must be a woman. Or not even giving women a chance to play games because they suck. But that isn't what was said or done. Not by a long, long, long stretch.
What happened was that people saw this, and went "Someone implied that somewhere, at some time, a subset of women might not in fact be as good at something that a subset of men are good at in certain specific context and situations? That's sexism!" And queue the ball rolling into anecdotes about how some douche bag refused to let his girlfriend play games with him because he thought all girls sucked at video games.
Well no. It's observation about reality and it's almost a truism. Except for that one sad, sad person who is officially the worst video game player ever. Everyone is better than him. Or her. Whatever.
Thread seems to have moved on since sleepy time, but to add my response to this.
I don't think I made my point clear. I wasn't taking about being offered easy mode "under any circumstances ". I was meaning a very specific circumstance, being that they conclude my skill level on a given activity on only 1 piece of information: My gender.
I honestly don't have a problem with guys trying to get their girlfriends to play a game with them, I acknowledge that it does happen and that an easy mode will help them. However, it has nothing to do with their gender, the same applies to boyfriends and friends and parents and siblings and and and.
I also don't see how "girls are bad a video games" is an "observation about reality and it's almost a truism"? I'm I misunderstanding the point of that sentence?
What's the reasoning behind including the Harley Quinn shot?
I'm not sure what the point of this question is
Are you going to try and do the thing where you invalidate the entire piece because of one (potentially) ill-chosen example?
Yes, obviously, because I am a villainous wretch.
No, I'm interested because I didn't consider that a particularly sexist situation at the time, since I didn't think it had anything to do with Harley Quinn's sex as opposed to her character.
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.
do you have a problem with more non-white, non-male heroes in games? i mean, at the very least, it would make a change from
having a white hero in a game doesn't necessarily make it sexist, but is instead an example of game culture overall having an attitude where the default hero is a white guy with short (probably brown) hair, and ladies, or non-whites, or non-white ladies, are few and far between.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
some of those dudes weren't white
also, everyone knows that blonde dudes are useless at everything always
What's the reasoning behind including the Harley Quinn shot?
I'm not sure what the point of this question is
Are you going to try and do the thing where you invalidate the entire piece because of one (potentially) ill-chosen example?
Yes, obviously, because I am a villainous wretch.
No, I'm interested because I didn't consider that a particularly sexist situation at the time, since I didn't think it had anything to do with Harley Quinn's sex as opposed to her character.
Sorry- I got a little defensive, and jumped here. Apologies.
That conversation is a picture-perfect example of the problem many people have with feminists. This is the sort of thing from which unfortunately accurate stereotypes about feminism arise. This is the sort of nonsense I have no desire to be associated with. There is literally no barrier between "I think that guy said something that could possibly be interpreted as sexist if I looked at it in the wrong light" and "MAKE HIM SUFFER!"
This is an extremely unfortunate way to define feminism. Is this really what you're trying to display yourself as? You just broke out the goddamn torches and pitchforks over an offhand comment that accurately describes a real thing that happens. What the hell, guys?
Sure, "girlfriend mode" is a tongue in cheek joke, but every joke has a premise.
The underlying assumption of "girlfriend mode" is that gaming is a boys' club and women are too stupid and incompetent to be a part of it. That's why people are annoyed.
The far more obvious underlying assumption is the stereotype of a guy not really being able to get his girlfriend into FPS gaming. That's a fairly common gamer injoke, and gaming is practically famous for its injokes.
Getting up in arms about it is the very definition of overreaction.
"women are too stupid and incompetent to be a part of it"
"guy not really being able to get his girlfriend into FPS gaming"
If the answer to the 2nd line is "make it easier", then you're saying line 1.
The answer to the 2nd line is NOT gameplay, it's marketing and community management.
Have you ever had a relationship where someone wasn't as interested in something as you, but still wanted to share it with you? It has nothing to do with innate ability. It has to do with time and interest. My girlfriend would never in a million years be as interested in board games as I am. So we play easier games and everyone has fun. I would never in a million years have the time to go hiking or do yoga like she has, so when we do those things together, we do easier hikes or easier yoga classes.
I'm not saying she, or by extension, all women, suck at board games. And she's not saying I, or by extension all men suck at hiking and yoga. We are simply recognizing where our enthusiasm for challenge in each others hobbies is deficient.
Yes I have, both me and my wife have hobbies that we share interest in, and hobbies that we don't. However when we go horse riding (she did show jumping, I'm terrified of them. I saw one try to eat a puppy once!), the riding instructor doesn't greet me, them immediately take my hand (sympathetically), and lead me to a tiny pony because obviously as a boyfriend I can't possibly know which end of the horse points up.
There's nothing wrong with having an easy mode for a game, assuming that it's needed by a specific group based purely on gender is.
Seriously, it tried to eat a puppy!
But that is not at all what you said. You presented a binary choice.
"women are too stupid and incompetent to be a part of it"
"guy not really being able to get his girlfriend into FPS gaming"
And then you directly equated saying an easy mode is the same as saying women are stupid.
If the answer to the 2nd line is "make it easier", then you're saying line 1.
You completely stripped all the context out. You directly equated the riding instructor, under any circumstances or context, offering you an easier option, as saying you are too stupid and incompetent to ride horses.
But all this is pedantic.
The fact of the matter is, guys trying to get their girlfriends to play games and failing is an extremely common shared experience most gamers have. Acknowledging it isn't sexism. It would be sexism if they extended that to saying all girlfriends suck at games. Or all women suck at games. Or that everyone who sucks at games must be a woman. Or not even giving women a chance to play games because they suck. But that isn't what was said or done. Not by a long, long, long stretch.
What happened was that people saw this, and went "Someone implied that somewhere, at some time, a subset of women might not in fact be as good at something that a subset of men are good at in certain specific context and situations? That's sexism!" And queue the ball rolling into anecdotes about how some douche bag refused to let his girlfriend play games with him because he thought all girls sucked at video games.
Well no. It's observation about reality and it's almost a truism. Except for that one sad, sad person who is officially the worst video game player ever. Everyone is better than him. Or her. Whatever.
Thread seems to have moved on since sleepy time, but to add my response to this.
I don't think I made my point clear. I wasn't taking about being offered easy mode "under any circumstances ". I was meaning a very specific circumstance, being that they conclude my skill level on a given activity on only 1 piece of information: My gender.
I honestly don't have a problem with guys trying to get their girlfriends to play a game with them, I acknowledge that it does happen and that an easy mode will help them. However, it has nothing to do with their gender, the same applies to boyfriends and friends and parents and siblings and and and.
I also don't see how "girls are bad a video games" is an "observation about reality and it's almost a truism"? I'm I misunderstanding the point of that sentence?
You left out the word "subset". It mean some. Not all.
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratorMod Emeritus
mostly the takeaway from that, i think, is that "safe design" is the central driver of video games.
0
Options
BethrynUnhappiness is MandatoryRegistered Userregular
mostly the takeaway from that, i think, is that "safe design" is the central driver of video games.
Well, triple-A games at least.
I'd be amused to see a similar chart posted for the $10 games section of Steam.
edit: the other takeaway is that Mario has awesome character design. Even if you take away half of his distinguishing features for a joke, he's still immediately recognizable and stands out from other characters at a glance.
Squidget0 on
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
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.
Still haven't caught up, but to respond to this quick.
I don't have a problem with this attitude really, I have the same attitude to certain areas/groups.
However, if you hold that stance, then you also can't (well you can, I need a better word here) upset if that group pushes back.
If the group that you're attacking, attacks back.
If that group doesn't want to have anything to do with you, and "be friends".
It's very much group A can make fun of group B, and group B just has to deal. But wrath of god if group B dare makes fun of A. Suddenly that's uncalled for, group B should be more caring/understanding etc.
If group A want's to write off group B under the "doesn't care" clause, then it also needs to act like it "doesn't care".
When you are mocking them for their words or actions, rather than their race, sex, or other uncontrollable.
Example:
"You throw game like a girl" vs "You throw game like a wimp noob"
And in the context, gaming has traditionally been seen as a guy thing, specifically FPS games. This leads to quite a few situations where the guy can't get his girlfriend into gaming. This is what is being referenced, not some "girls can't game" nonsense. It is saying this, and nothing more. It is not a social commentary, it is not a mockery of all women gamers. It is a specific circumstance that has turned into a well-known inside joke for gamers.
There, criteria met.
Okay, but tying this back into the example in the beginning. How does making the game easier help, since it's the cultural context of "gaming has traditionally been seen as a guy thing" that's actually preventing more girls from playing?
I'm not sure who should be more irritated, women who want to play games, or people who date women who want the people the women they date to play games. When an a culture built around an activity contains elements that are antagonistic to a group of people, that group of people is going to be less likely to want to be involved in that activity because it increases the chance of them having to deal with antagonism.
Boorish crap like this has a negative effect on the industry and the personal relationships of gamers, before we even get into the other problems with it.
Yeah man, if only developers would try to find ways to get more people into gaming. Maybe some kind of cooperative mode within the game that's less punishing than the standard mode. That way the people who aren't gamers could have friends get them into it, and they'd be able to pick up the skills gradually and do well instead of having to learn everything at once. This would be pretty useful since a lot of people haven't been playing games their whole lives and don't always have the background male gamers do that allows them to quickly learn complex games.
It's a shame developers are all too sexist to do something like that.
There we go, it's no longer sexist, has broader appeal and will make them more money by getting more people to play their game.
win-win
Well only if you think that women are people and that there are people who are bad a video games that aren't women.
also, i find it ironic that the gears reference on that chart is actually an asian dude
yeah, it's not actually the worst sample you could make of game characters. altair is half arabic, turok is half native american, johnny klebitz is jewish so there's something, but i think if you took a random sample of protagonists you'd end up with a lot of people voiced by nolan north yknow
What's the reasoning behind including the Harley Quinn shot?
Did you check my sub-line there directly under the image?
I wrote:
"Completely unnecessary display of abused, bound and gagged Harley Quinn (who lives in an abusive relationship with Joker). The player can decide to gag her again. Just for fun."
If you still got a question, it would be great if you could be more specific with your inquiry. Thanks.
Seriously, I wish there was a better system than health handicap for fighting games, my dad loved SF4 but sucked enough that it wasn't fun for him to play me.
I mean the system is good! Though it's silly to make it DLC, and I'm sure the poor PR dude is a fine person who's nice to pals and children. But like, don't do that! Sell your game, and your medium, in a manner calculated to maximize inclusiveness. I mean fuck, I'm glad Halo for some reason broke into the like frat market or however that worked.
It only makes for a wider variety of interesting things, it's only ever a good thing. It doesn't need to become a battle for your certificate of Good Personness, no one cares about you in particular.
I'm not sure who should be more irritated, women who want to play games, or people who date women who want the people the women they date to play games. When an a culture built around an activity contains elements that are antagonistic to a group of people, that group of people is going to be less likely to want to be involved in that activity because it increases the chance of them having to deal with antagonism.
Boorish crap like this has a negative effect on the industry and the personal relationships of gamers, before we even get into the other problems with it.
Yeah man, if only developers would try to find ways to get more women into gaming. Maybe some kind of cooperative mode within the game that's less punishing than the standard mode. That way the women who aren't gamers could have friends get them into it, and they'd be able to pick up the skills gradually and do well instead of having to learn everything at once. This would be pretty useful since a lot of women haven't been playing games their whole lives and don't always have the background male gamers do that allows them to quickly learn complex games.
It's a shame developers are all too sexist to do something like that.
All this post displays is a terribly misinformed understanding of why women do or do not play games. They don't play games because they're too HARD - your implication of this is, btw, sexist. They don't play games because of other reasons, and adjusting the difficulty in an effort to "include" women is to further that misinformed view of why women don't (or DO) play games.
It's not because it's "too hard." It's actually because they're not designed with women in mind, so many women naturally do not play them. It's like Barbie dolls (even though plenty of girls don't even play with THOSE but as an example just go with it) - they're not designed for dudes, so no one's going to shit all over dudes for not playing with Barbies. No one is going to dumb down a Barbie because they're "too hard" for guys to play with.
But guys can still play with Barbie dolls if they want to, and girls can play video games if they want to. The idea is that inbetween and on either side of that gender divide, shit remains respectful.
I mean shit, there are also guys that have played video games for YEARS who suck at them - but they're not girlfriends, are they?
EDIT - and since you need an explanation for why what you said is sexist - it's because you are assuming that girls are not equal to boys and/or lack the capability of performing at the same level as boys when it comes to video games, and that girls need to be pandered to and babied in order to be able to find a video game accessible. Simple as that.
Er, I don't think you understood my post. I'm not talking about natural skill levels or even why women choose to play games, I'm talking about game design.
There are a lot of skills you pick up as a hardcore gamer, skills that you don't even realize carry over from game to game. Go watch a typical old person (60+) play games and you'll see exactly what I mean. They don't know how to navigate a 3D environment. They don't know how to mentally map game controls to in-world actions. They don't know how to judge distances and timings using the feedback from the game world. All these skills that a typical hardcore gamer has built up over many years, they don't have. That, more than anything, is what differentiates a hardcore game from a casual game. A hardcore game assumes that you're knowledgeable in the language of video games, and even an "easy" hardcore game can feel rather ruthlessly punishing if you haven't. That isn't related to natural talent- an inexperienced person can certainly learn to play hardcore games well, but it requires a time investment and a willingness to endure what is initially an unrewarding environment. Some non-gamers can surely push through this, but many won't, and lowering the barrier to entry is a way to increase that number.
Features that make hardcore games more accessible are useful to women because women are statistically more likely not to have that crucial gaming background. For a variety of reasons, women haven't historically been gamers, and they're now less likely to have learned the language of games to the point where they can play a typical hardcore game. Obviously certain individuals buck this trend, and it's not saying anything about innate ability, it's simply a statement of the facts based on what we know. If you make your hardcore game more accessible with features like simplified co-op modes, you're going to get a lot more non-gamers trying it out than you would otherwise; you're lowering the barrier to entry. Since people who don't play shooters are statistically more likely to be women, you're helping women get into gaming in a very real way when you add features that increase accessibility. You're giving real women a chance to have a good experience when they try out gaming for the first time, rather than simply getting killed over and over because the game demands skills they simply haven't ever had the chance to learn. This is unquestionably a good thing for getting more women in games, and it's something we should be applauding if we want to see more women (and non-gamers in general) trying out hardcore games.
Instead we're bitching about it for pages on end, and putting the designer behind the feature through the ringer. Why? Because a developer pointed out in an interview that a guy getting his girlfriend to play games is going to be one of the more common use cases. Score one for internet feminism.
And you do realize that there are also dudes who might want to break in to gaming that need those easy modes as well?
Of course someone who is a newbie to games is not going to have the skillset. The point is that all newbies are not female and someone's girlfriend. Sometimes newbies are guys! Or to use an example from your post, 60 year old grandpas! What is the benefit of excluding other groups from easy mode, and specifying that easy mode is something only girlfriends would ever need to use?
Yes, you're still being sexist, very much so!
I don't see how other groups have been "excluded" from the easy mode at all. The developer in an interview identified a common use case (guy getting his girlfriend into gaming), but I don't think he ever said that that's the only reason someone might play that character. That's just the use case he was thinking of when he made the feature. The game itself doesn't use the term "girlfriend mode", and the only way you'd know the term is if you were reading interviews about the game (in which case you're almost certainly already a gamer.)
Is it worth considering that maybe you're reacting to something no one has actually said?
You understand that if I call the thief class in a game "black man mode", I'm being racist, right? "Oh, but I"m not saying that all black men steal! Or that only black men can be thieves! Calling it black man mode is just a little joke!" Yep, and it's still racist!
That analogy would make sense if he had called it "woman mode" and used it as a way to talk about how bad women are as games. What he did was refer to it as "girlfriend mode" and qualified it by describing a specific use case where a guy tries to get his girlfriend involved in games, a use case that is pretty common among his target demographic. Thinking in terms of hypothetical users is a very common technique when you're designing something - you invent a few users who represent common users of your product, and you build your product with them in mind.
The the hypothetical mode would have been okay if it was "Poor Black Man mode", or "ex-convict black man mode", or maybe even the very specific "Actually a thief irl black man mode".
I don't see how adding more qualifiers on to a race stereotype makes it any better tbh.
Edit: To tie it back to "women mode", even if they called it "Girlfriends who are not gamers mode" it'll still be sexist. It implies that "Guys who are not gamers" don't need a easy mode to become gamers, because guys are awesome at video games. It's all in the Y chromosome and statistics and memes from 20 years ago.
What's the reasoning behind including the Harley Quinn shot?
Did you check my sub-line there directly under the image?
I wrote:
"Completely unnecessary display of abused, bound and gagged Harley Quinn (who lives in an abusive relationship with Joker). The player can decide to gag her again. Just for fun."
If you still got a question, it would be great if you could be more specific with your inquiry. Thanks.
Yes, I read that. I simply don't immediately understand how it pertains to sexism. Are you saying that it's because of the broader picture of a large number of women in games being written into bondage/abuse situations, and/or do you have a problem with the image of a woman being abused in a game specifically, and/or the possibility of the player enjoying it?
To me, it makes sense in the internal logic of Arkham City.
She's bound because she was trying to stop Joker's plan, she's gagged because she's in an abusive relationship with Joker and he finds her talking annoying (and she's objecting to his plan). The player can also gag her again because she's both a villain, and she's annoying, and finally it's 'crossing the line twice' for Batman to also find her just as annoying as the Joker does.
While I hardly think it's a 'wholesome' image, I'm not immediately seeing where the sexism is coming into it.
What's the reasoning behind including the Harley Quinn shot?
Did you check my sub-line there directly under the image?
I wrote:
"Completely unnecessary display of abused, bound and gagged Harley Quinn (who lives in an abusive relationship with Joker). The player can decide to gag her again. Just for fun."
If you still got a question, it would be great if you could be more specific with your inquiry. Thanks.
So okay, applying the Batman test--how apropos!--it seems just fine. Dude, kind of an asshole/annoying/taunted you all this time, hopelessly devoted to crime boss who treats him like shit, got beat up, bound, gagged, and abandoned by the other criminal types that performed a hostile takeover type of thing, and is found by our heroine--eh, may as well invert both?--and can be re-gagged against his protest after a bit of infodump.
I mean I'm picturing Joe Pesci or Gilbert Gottfried types, or maybe a Ruby Rhod type of secondary character, and I would hit that "re-gag" button SO HARD, with SUCH glee. Ooh, I bet Buscemi could pull that off too. I could maybe see a Brad Pitt type, too.
Is your assertion that there's some situations that it's just never okay to put one gender in, but it's fine if it's the other? I'm assuming that's down to legacy/existing cultural context?
Was there more to that post that you accidentally cut off?
Otherwise you are just posting two images, and we can't really compare them because they are in completely different poses
Actually you can. Because it's rather obvious whether or not they're in different positions.
Was just an interesting example of a game that is literally ripping off another game, and while it can keep all the male models the exact same, it has to thin the waist, double the ass, and quadruple the breasts.
Wow, that Spelunky article is hilariously silly, to the point that I thought you were parodying feminist blogs at first. It's the kind of article I'd expect from someone who's never played games before, or at least isn't aware of the retro games Spelunky's damsel mechanic is a parody of.
My favorite is when you randomly cite rape statistics, apropos of nothing. "Here is a game called Spelunky. 1 in 5 women are raped. Is Spelunky somehow involved? I'm only asking questions!"
Squidget0 on
+2
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The design team was looking at the concept art and thought, you know what, this is actually the cutest character we've ever had. I want to make, for the lack of a better term, the girlfriend skill tree. This is, I love Borderlands and I want to share it with someone, but they suck at first-person shooters. Can we make a skill tree that actually allows them to understand the game and to play the game? That's what our attempt with the Best Friends Forever skill tree is.
And I see nothing wrong with that. In his world, for his uses, this is a girlfriend mode. His girlfriend. He is thinking of his girlfriend as the person this mode is designed for. And he didn't even say they suck at games. Just that they suck at first person shooters. These very specific girlfriends that these men on the dev team have in their lives. That is clear as day to me in what he said. What he actually said. In its complete context. Not sound bited out and dropped into the middle of self flagellating circle jerk of victim Olympics and privilege accusations.
And I agree with that sentiment. My first post on this topic was that I think he probably meant his social group, and it was an in-joke. I have those that if I shared it with the outside world will be racist/sexist.
I assumed we moved on from that, to the hypothetical that if it was actually called "Girlfriend Mode" and was marketed to Girlfriends, it would be okay.
If others were taking about the comment specifically, and I about the hypothetical, then it's just a case of misunderstanding on my part.
Yes, I read that. I simply don't immediately understand how it pertains to sexism. Are you saying that it's because of the broader picture of a large number of women in games being written into bondage/abuse situations, and/or do you have a problem with the image of a woman being abused in a game specifically, and/or the possibility of the player enjoying it?
To me, it makes sense in the internal logic of Arkham City.
She's bound because she was trying to stop Joker's plan, she's gagged because she's in an abusive relationship with Joker and he finds her talking annoying (and she's objecting to his plan). The player can also gag her again because she's both a villain, and she's annoying, and finally it's 'crossing the line twice' for Batman to also find her just as annoying as the Joker does.
While I hardly think it's a 'wholesome' image, I'm not immediately seeing where the sexism is coming into it.
i assume here that you're trying to say "removed from the context of IRL..."?
imo this kind of thing kinda follows a similar reasoning as to why the tomb raider rape/molestation scene was not ok. it kinda rubs up against real-world problems like abuse, and treats them as entertainment, or at least not really appropriately. in the case of harley quinn:
-she's kinda trussed up ideally for an ogle
-there's no option to, say, untie her and handcuff her is there? just re-gagging her? because, yeesh, that's a horrible idea to pass onto players. she might be abused, but she's annoying, always chatting shit, women, mirite? where's the sympathy for a woman in that kind of situation?
also, i find it ironic that the gears reference on that chart is actually an asian dude
yeah, it's not actually the worst sample you could make of game characters. altair is half arabic, turok is half native american, johnny klebitz is jewish so there's something, but i think if you took a random sample of protagonists you'd end up with a lot of people voiced by nolan north yknow
Which explains the design. Shaved heads hide hair texture and colour, and that medium dark skin dominates everywhere but Sweden, Japan, and Sudan.
On the "girlfriend mode" discussion, would you guys say that golf is sexist due to this:
[img][/img]
And ya know, I would just love to show you guys pictures with a better comparison. But you're not allowed to see the female character from the front. Hahaha.
Posts
I don't see what's sexist about either picture, other than that one features military characters while the other features civilians (which makes sense in a zombie mod.)
i didn't stereotype girlfriends. i have a girlfriend who is bad at video games. i'm not really sure where your hostility is coming from, and i don't really think I'd regard a "dad mode" as particularly hurtful or offensive. would you?
Well, "Dads" have privilege, so it can't be hurtful/offensive.
is this problematic? the character in the second picture doesn't strike me as especially lascivious or stereotyped, though admittedly the first character is aggressively nongendered
I'm not sure what the point of this question is
Are you going to try and do the thing where you invalidate the entire piece because of one (potentially) ill-chosen example?
I haven't played the game, but I do know that Harley's depiction in the Arkham games has already been criticized, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were other sexism problems with her in the franchise
Was there more to that post that you accidentally cut off?
Otherwise you are just posting two images, and we can't really compare them because they are in completely different poses
Thread seems to have moved on since sleepy time, but to add my response to this.
I don't think I made my point clear. I wasn't taking about being offered easy mode "under any circumstances ". I was meaning a very specific circumstance, being that they conclude my skill level on a given activity on only 1 piece of information: My gender.
I honestly don't have a problem with guys trying to get their girlfriends to play a game with them, I acknowledge that it does happen and that an easy mode will help them. However, it has nothing to do with their gender, the same applies to boyfriends and friends and parents and siblings and and and.
I also don't see how "girls are bad a video games" is an "observation about reality and it's almost a truism"? I'm I misunderstanding the point of that sentence?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
No, I'm interested because I didn't consider that a particularly sexist situation at the time, since I didn't think it had anything to do with Harley Quinn's sex as opposed to her character.
do you have a problem with more non-white, non-male heroes in games? i mean, at the very least, it would make a change from
having a white hero in a game doesn't necessarily make it sexist, but is instead an example of game culture overall having an attitude where the default hero is a white guy with short (probably brown) hair, and ladies, or non-whites, or non-white ladies, are few and far between.
also, everyone knows that blonde dudes are useless at everything always
Sorry- I got a little defensive, and jumped here. Apologies.
You left out the word "subset". It mean some. Not all.
Also, I love the inclusion of L4D in that picture.
Well, triple-A games at least.
I'd be amused to see a similar chart posted for the $10 games section of Steam.
edit: the other takeaway is that Mario has awesome character design. Even if you take away half of his distinguishing features for a joke, he's still immediately recognizable and stands out from other characters at a glance.
Still haven't caught up, but to respond to this quick.
I don't have a problem with this attitude really, I have the same attitude to certain areas/groups.
However, if you hold that stance, then you also can't (well you can, I need a better word here) upset if that group pushes back.
If the group that you're attacking, attacks back.
If that group doesn't want to have anything to do with you, and "be friends".
It's very much group A can make fun of group B, and group B just has to deal. But wrath of god if group B dare makes fun of A. Suddenly that's uncalled for, group B should be more caring/understanding etc.
If group A want's to write off group B under the "doesn't care" clause, then it also needs to act like it "doesn't care".
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Okay, but tying this back into the example in the beginning. How does making the game easier help, since it's the cultural context of "gaming has traditionally been seen as a guy thing" that's actually preventing more girls from playing?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
in the second screenshot the woman is clearly wearing a midriff-exposing shirt combo
the pose and shadows make it harder to see, but it's there
also, i find it ironic that the gears reference on that chart is actually an asian dude
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
Scandalous!
it's just some folks were giving the impression that they didn't see much of a difference
just pointing it out
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
At this point, I don't think Valve really has any excuse with the TF2 roster.
There we go, it's no longer sexist, has broader appeal and will make them more money by getting more people to play their game.
win-win
Well only if you think that women are people and that there are people who are bad a video games that aren't women.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
yeah, it's not actually the worst sample you could make of game characters. altair is half arabic, turok is half native american, johnny klebitz is jewish so there's something, but i think if you took a random sample of protagonists you'd end up with a lot of people voiced by nolan north yknow
Did you check my sub-line there directly under the image?
I wrote:
"Completely unnecessary display of abused, bound and gagged Harley Quinn (who lives in an abusive relationship with Joker). The player can decide to gag her again. Just for fun."
If you still got a question, it would be great if you could be more specific with your inquiry. Thanks.
I mean the system is good! Though it's silly to make it DLC, and I'm sure the poor PR dude is a fine person who's nice to pals and children. But like, don't do that! Sell your game, and your medium, in a manner calculated to maximize inclusiveness. I mean fuck, I'm glad Halo for some reason broke into the like frat market or however that worked.
It only makes for a wider variety of interesting things, it's only ever a good thing. It doesn't need to become a battle for your certificate of Good Personness, no one cares about you in particular.
Aha, things got ...uhm... official, I guess. Obviously things, I mean asses, I mean women need to be marketed...
The the hypothetical mode would have been okay if it was "Poor Black Man mode", or "ex-convict black man mode", or maybe even the very specific "Actually a thief irl black man mode".
I don't see how adding more qualifiers on to a race stereotype makes it any better tbh.
Edit: To tie it back to "women mode", even if they called it "Girlfriends who are not gamers mode" it'll still be sexist. It implies that "Guys who are not gamers" don't need a easy mode to become gamers, because guys are awesome at video games. It's all in the Y chromosome and statistics and memes from 20 years ago.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
To me, it makes sense in the internal logic of Arkham City.
She's bound because she was trying to stop Joker's plan, she's gagged because she's in an abusive relationship with Joker and he finds her talking annoying (and she's objecting to his plan). The player can also gag her again because she's both a villain, and she's annoying, and finally it's 'crossing the line twice' for Batman to also find her just as annoying as the Joker does.
While I hardly think it's a 'wholesome' image, I'm not immediately seeing where the sexism is coming into it.
So okay, applying the Batman test--how apropos!--it seems just fine. Dude, kind of an asshole/annoying/taunted you all this time, hopelessly devoted to crime boss who treats him like shit, got beat up, bound, gagged, and abandoned by the other criminal types that performed a hostile takeover type of thing, and is found by our heroine--eh, may as well invert both?--and can be re-gagged against his protest after a bit of infodump.
I mean I'm picturing Joe Pesci or Gilbert Gottfried types, or maybe a Ruby Rhod type of secondary character, and I would hit that "re-gag" button SO HARD, with SUCH glee. Ooh, I bet Buscemi could pull that off too. I could maybe see a Brad Pitt type, too.
Is your assertion that there's some situations that it's just never okay to put one gender in, but it's fine if it's the other? I'm assuming that's down to legacy/existing cultural context?
Actually you can. Because it's rather obvious whether or not they're in different positions.
Was just an interesting example of a game that is literally ripping off another game, and while it can keep all the male models the exact same, it has to thin the waist, double the ass, and quadruple the breasts.
My favorite is when you randomly cite rape statistics, apropos of nothing. "Here is a game called Spelunky. 1 in 5 women are raped. Is Spelunky somehow involved? I'm only asking questions!"
And I agree with that sentiment. My first post on this topic was that I think he probably meant his social group, and it was an in-joke. I have those that if I shared it with the outside world will be racist/sexist.
I assumed we moved on from that, to the hypothetical that if it was actually called "Girlfriend Mode" and was marketed to Girlfriends, it would be okay.
If others were taking about the comment specifically, and I about the hypothetical, then it's just a case of misunderstanding on my part.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
i assume here that you're trying to say "removed from the context of IRL..."?
imo this kind of thing kinda follows a similar reasoning as to why the tomb raider rape/molestation scene was not ok. it kinda rubs up against real-world problems like abuse, and treats them as entertainment, or at least not really appropriately. in the case of harley quinn:
-she's kinda trussed up ideally for an ogle
-there's no option to, say, untie her and handcuff her is there? just re-gagging her? because, yeesh, that's a horrible idea to pass onto players. she might be abused, but she's annoying, always chatting shit, women, mirite? where's the sympathy for a woman in that kind of situation?
Marketing / Marketability.
"X tends to sell"
Why would a person deviate from X, if their intention is to sell?
Why would Batman untie Harley and handcuff her instead? That makes no sense and I'd find it a lot more strange than just leaving her there.
Which explains the design. Shaved heads hide hair texture and colour, and that medium dark skin dominates everywhere but Sweden, Japan, and Sudan.
On the "girlfriend mode" discussion, would you guys say that golf is sexist due to this:
[img][/img]
I tried to show you guys her face! I really did!