The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The Female Gamer Perspective. I want to learn.
Posts
Mmmmm....toasty.
These threads always get into these weird debates about criticism and whether it's okay to criticize art, or criticize criticism, or whatever. It just goes in circles and feels pointless.
-It is totally okay to criticize art.
-It is totally okay to criticize other people's criticisms.
-Saying that you don't think a particular thing is an issue is not the same as saying that the people who disagree should shut up.
-It's also okay to discuss the environment criticism creates, in aggregate. For example, if the 'mainstream' of criticism supports one kind of female characters, but discourages another, that kind of sucks for people who enjoy the character being criticized. It's perfectly okay for them to talk about and lament the effect that has on developers, and whether or not the criticism in question is achieving its stated goals.
This is false. Criticize all you like.
But expecting, demanding, that all video games be made comfortable and appealing for you is not mere criticism.
If people had just called Nintendo a bunch of hacks you'd have gotten nothing but agreement from me. They are a bunch of hacks. But they're a bunch of hacks whose games a lot of people (apparently) like. So no, they don't have to change just because I am not amongst that group.
Oh, great, so people can criticize, just as long as they don't get uppity and expect anyone to actually listen to those critiques and no one actually tries to improve their products.
You use such dismissive language, "expecting, demanding, that all video games be made comfortable and appealing for you" as if arguing that hey, maybe we should not be OK with women overwhelmingly being treated as either inanimate objects or sex dolls as some sort of request for coddling. Just because some really problematic, insulting bullshit is going to die out as a result does not make it censorship, any more than Uncle Tom shows dying out was a tragedy of censorship. That IS the market deciding, just because social criticism influences consumers doesn't mean it's fucking censorship!
nvm
I've had my fill of being the stand-in for every sexist person.
Sometimes the latter opinion is justified. In cases of prejudice it's usually such a case.
In cases of prejudice against 50% of all people it is really hard to argue that things shouldn't change.
In short: Your Buzzwords have no power here!
So then, maybe don't use the same arguments they do? That is- calling it "thought policing" and claiming that we want to eliminate all objectionable media that is objectionable only to some small minority or whatever the hell you are actually arguing.
Which is kind of why I didn't want to respond to the thread, not really.
I don't really ever understand what, exactly, your arguments in these threads are. What, exactly, about this topic drives you to post so vehemently about it?
I mean, for a lot of us it is pretty clear. Aegeri, myself, Magic Pink, and many others are genuinely interested in what we see as a problem of underrepresentation (or poor depictions of) women in video games (and also other minorities).
All of our posts are along that theme- video games, get better. Stop relying on tired tropes, even in established IPs. Really stop relying on these tropes in new IP.
Try and stop being accidentally sexist/transphobic/homophobic . It isn't hard.
Definitely stop deliberately being sexist/transphobic/homophobic (Other M, GTA 5, many other games).
And we couple all this with actual examples of harassment people face, in the gaming community, and draw a causal link between the way women (and minorities) are depicted in games and the way they are treated in the community.
I sent Aegeri this article a bit ago, but it is interesting. You can also look to "Fat, Ugly, or Slutty" or any of the #1reasonwhy stuff.
So then, what is your point?
As far as I can tell, it is to come and say "okay yeah this sucks, but if you try and get it to change that is thought policing, which is worse".
Is that not your point?
Oh look, another retreat into the safe embrace of, "Waaah everyone's strawmanning meeee"
You never seem to have any problems casting aspersions on anyone else in these arguments as an idiot, but as soon as the heat starts getting raised on your own positions, well, suddenly that's so totally mean and unfair. I'm not raging, I'm not even angry, but debate is a full contact sport and your argued position inherently leads to not opposing the continuing disenfranchisement of large portions of this country at one time or another. If you don't like people pointing that out then, well, too damn bad, refine or change your argument. You're doing neither, you just try to change the topic every time someone brings up something that your position compels you to defend.
Oh I never said everyone was strawmanning me, Kana.
I said you were. And you did. If my arguments are so terrible, then it should be easy for you to effortlessly demolish them without hysterically accusing me of banning all criticism of any art whatsoever (your retarded accusation).
Improve your own fucking arguments a little.
Sure, and I think that's a reasonable argument you're making. I also think there are a lot of reasonable points to be made against that argument.
For example, many have pointed out that not all games use stories in the same way. That the story in Mario or Spelunky isn't really comparable to the story in Heavy Rain or Bioshock.
Many people have pointed out that the 'underrepresentation' of women is a factor of the audience that is interested in buying the kinds of games you're limiting yourself too, ie: action games designed for a hardcore game-playing audience that has played since childhood. They have likewise pointed out that when the audience is more equitable (for example, in the case of casual games) the representations tend to even out as well.
Many people have pointed out that the way women are treated in gaming communities really seems to have very little to do with the content of the games, and everything to do with the failure of those communities to deal with abusers effectively.
Many people have pointed out how many of the complaints about how imaginary female characters are treated seem to come strongly from a place of "These are women and therefore require extra protection" or "Male sexuality has no place in non-pornographic art."
These are all points that reasonable people can argue over. I think what is frustrating Regina, and others, is that people who argue those points often end up being treated as cartoon sexists. "Oh, so you interpret this issue differently? I guess you're just one of those people who wants women to not have opinions!"
I am not blaming you for this Arch because I haven't seen you do it, but it is very much a thing that happens.
Unfortunately, the RAAM'S Shadow DLC and Judgment game that followed were uncomfortably poor. DLC spoilers:
With Judgment, Sofia is the only female character in the game. None of her peers respect her, her primary backstory is that she slept with her professor, who was already married with kids, and one of her squadmates (indirectly) calls her a slut. Then finally (more spoilers):
After Gears 3 made an effort to be inclusive, I was surprised how little respect the followup game/DLC had for its female characters.
I have to disagree that the bolded part of Squidget0's post has been made a point in this thread. Arteen's post is a perfect example of this. I never played the Gears games, but I read the Wiki articles about the two characters. Each character was a bad-ass soldier who held their own in a fight. Val met her end
So just to sum up, it's not just the violence that people are having a problem with. It's the skewed rate at which female characters seem to suffer from it, and how incredibly often they are made to be victims during the course of it.
Worst "apology" ever.
This is also at a time when he's got a big budget Ender's Game in theaters.
My only counterpoint: at some time in the future, Courage man is going to show up and once again wreck all his shit. Better to keep that fucker under lock and key first, then take Zelda captive. It would be nice to either see a story wherein both are taken captive, but Zelda frees herself and then goes about freeing Link (and then the game allowing you to play as either character in some fashion), or Link is the captive in one way or another, and you must use "wisdom" (i.e. more puzzle solving and magic that specifically sword-swinging) to find your way to and rescue Link using Zelda. I'd totally play either one, honestly.
That's not to say I expect Nintendo to make either. Nor do I expect Peach to be anything more than the occasional playable character. Not because I don't want them, but more because I am realistic about the impetus for change at Nintendo, specifically Nintendo of Japan.
For more meta-commentary, several of those points seem to come from a misunderstanding or twisting of the initial arguments.
That is, for one example, your last bit about female sexuality really misunderstands a lot of what is said about things like male gaze, or seems like it is trying an annoying rhetorical trick. Namely, "oh no, this isn't sexist, you are sexist for complaining about women needing to cover up!"
Which is...not really what that argument is about. Not really. "Male sexuality has no place in non-pornographic art." is not even the point we are making.
The point, rather, is "Male sexuality has no place being the default mode of expression for an entire gender in a specific form of non-pornographic art."
So then, like I said- one of the reasons people respond as if their opponents are "cartoon sexists", is because the arguments made are nearly indistinguishable from the arguments made to justify sexist behaviors.
Plus, it does also seem like people are saying " I want women to not have opinions!" when criticism of games is met with "it has always been that way." "it is not important." "complaining about this is just like censorship."
So, I guess that's how I see it, at least.
Given that it is possible to come up with a justification for almost any plot in any game, ever it is silly to try and use this as an excuse for why (for example) Zelda is always captured.
Which is kind of the point Kalnaur is making, I just wanted to be more explicit.
True.
So if the story isn't important, why are they all the same? If the story isn't important to Mario, or puzzle solving games, why is it not changed?
And conversely, if story is so important to games like Heavy Rain, or Bioshock, why are they all still following the same basic formula?
My point is that this rebuttal is actually not that important. The story either doesn't matter (which can easily be used to justify all kinds of nonsensical plots) or it does matter, and in this case one would expect higher pressure for more innovative stories.
But we haven't really seen divergence from the standard formats until very recently, and even then, it is such a small fraction of the overall percentage of stories told in games that it almost doesn't matter.
Plus, where do you draw the line at "a game where story matters" and "a game where the story doesn't matter"?
Does the story matter in Castle Crashers? Mario Sunshine? Myst? Street Fighter?
I think story is more important than you are giving it credit for, at all levels of gaming.
And at the very least, the story of a game matters a lot to someone, somewhere (which was earlier used as a justification for keeping sexist shit in games. If one person likes it, it has worth.)
Like, no, these are literally created characters who have no personal input on the way they look. They are designed to be sex objects. That's the whole point of the game.
Similarly Zelda or Peach doesn't keep on getting captured because women have less upper body strength or whatever, they keep on getting captured because the people who designed the game decided that the only kind of interesting plot they can have involves a dude rescuing a lady.
Well, I guess it depends on who the 'we' is, and what they are saying. I'm not sure that everyone on either side agrees on where that line is, which is why we discuss it.
In general, a trend I often notice in these threads is that games can always be improved by removing sexuality from the characters. "Such and such game had a well-written female character, but it would have been even better for women if she'd been more covered up" is a very common sentiment that seems to echo through these arguments. The implication is that games are always improved by removing sexuality from the characters, and that by covering up women in 'practical' outfits that we are always empowering them. I don't agree, because I see the association between sex and disempowerment as the problem, not the expression of sexuality or sexy characters. In other words, the problem isn't that some women in games are sexualized, but that we see sexualization as inherently disempowering for women, when we don't see it that way for men.
For example, this PA comic caught some ire recently in some feminist circles:
So is that comic part of the problem with "male sexuality being the default mode of expression for the entire gender"? Some would argue that it is. For me it just seems like two people writing a comic about a conversation they had. People choose to consume all kinds of media for all kinds of reasons, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. All of the things I can think of that are wrong with that seem to lead directly back to puritanical ideas about the evils of sex, with a side of gender roles.
Thanks for playing!