Just a simple question for Regina - are OSC's artistic works acceptable for consumption? I mean, his views quite obviously are controversial (downright offensive, actually), but would you characterize his fiction as acceptable?
Ok, I lied, I am going to address that because I saw arch jump in with an agree so this must be killed with fire.
Go back and find the place where I said that no one is allowed to dislike things and say they are crappy and call the creators hacks. Pretty sure what I said was that just because I don't like something doesn't mean it needs to not exist as media and be replaced by things that I approve of. I practice what I am preaching by not buying OSC's stuff. I wish everyone agreed with me, but I don't think that because they don't they need to be deprived of their shitty science fiction because I am morally right and they are morally wrong (although they totally are and I totally am).
I'll wait right here.
God damn Regina, can you try to have your cake and eat it too any more than you are? Anyone else critiques something and they're literally practicing censorship and trying to control the creative works of others, but YOU telling people that OSC is a shitty hack is just fine. Their righteous indignation doesn't disguise the ugliness of their positions, but oh, you still can't resist claiming your own moral high ground at the same time. Literally the only defining aspect of your argument is that you get to decide what's OK and not and everyone else should just shut up.
And then not only is your only criterion for judging what's OK purely based on what does or does not personally offend you, and anyone with a different standard is just an over-sensitive idiot. And anyone who calls you out on this ridiculous standard is just strawmanning you. Every fucking time, none of these idiots ever understands poor Regina's great wisdom.
Criticism affects not only products being created but even more so the cultures consuming those products. Just ignoring problematic stuff isn't a position of moral courage, it's simply inaction. It's moral turpitude. And it's a position of tremendous privilege. Racist portrayals of black people and other minorities in movies weren't improved by simply looking in the other direction and not buying tickets. Video games aren't going to spontaneously improve just because a woman didn't buy a game and kept her mouth shut. It's not about eliminating media, it's about improving it, and while no not every company is clued in to the internet commentariat a whole lot of them are. Shit, we have people who make video games professionally who post on these very forums.
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.
+3
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
Like I said, I don't see the confusion at all. There is "I don't like this" and there is "I don't like this, you need to change. You all need to change. Adjust to match me."
You are not doing the former, you're doing the latter.
But this argument only makes this distinction when you have some kind of inane implication that I have a feminist Gestapo somewhere that is capable of forcing change to what I want. What I do is say, I don't like this and this is my reasons and can you maybe do something more positive? In reality, any distinction is a fabrication entirely in your head that doesn't really exist. I have absolutely no power to force anyone in the games industry to do anything. None of us posting do.
And I can assure you, women in the industry haven't much further power in many places (see the infinite number of #1reasonwhy articles).
So I can't stop OSC from doing anything, other than realizing that he has reprehensible views and actively tries to enact those views on people - so I shouldn't support him. By not supporting him because of his awful views am I being a member of the "thought police?", because we are doing nothing different in the long run. OSC doesn't care about you or me, but both of us think he's an awful hack and a bigot we shouldn't support.
I happen to think the same about the way some video games depict women, so I don't support them. Do I have any ability to "feminist Gestapo" rock star? Nope, they will be rolling around naked in puppies with vests made from $100 bills. Does the general mass of gamers who viciously and terribly attack people with minority views have any power? Yes, they certainly can do in their war to intimidate, threaten and harass people who dare to say "Maybe this gigantic open world game having absolutely no significant women is a problem, but the game is so awesome I give it a 9.0".
The laughable thing here is that you are ascribing the thought police to the entirely wrong segment of people who talk about games: It's not those offering informed actual criticism. Most of whom really can't actually effect any significant change in the sense of being "thought police" unless, possibly what worries you, what they are saying actually has merit that does resonate with people who make games.
What a horrifying thought. At least more merit than the response to Carolyn's review that produced this feedbackula.
Ok, I lied, I am going to address that because I saw arch jump in with an agree so this must be killed with fire.
Go back and find the place where I said that no one is allowed to dislike things and say they are crappy and call the creators hacks. Pretty sure what I said was that just because I don't like something doesn't mean it needs to not exist as media and be replaced by things that I approve of. I practice what I am preaching by not buying OSC's stuff. I wish everyone agreed with me, but I don't think that because they don't they need to be deprived of their shitty science fiction because I am morally right and they are morally wrong (although they totally are and I totally am).
I'll wait right here.
God damn Regina, can you try to have your cake and eat it too any more than you are? Anyone else critiques something and they're literally practicing censorship and trying to control the creative works of others, but YOU telling people that OSC is a shitty hack is just fine.
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.
The notion that I'm secretly terrified of male gaze booty panovers vanishing from games is hilarious. Also, of course, all of my most favorite games happen to be ones where you get to design your own protagonist. :P
Ok, I lied, I am going to address that because I saw arch jump in with an agree so this must be killed with fire.
Go back and find the place where I said that no one is allowed to dislike things and say they are crappy and call the creators hacks. Pretty sure what I said was that just because I don't like something doesn't mean it needs to not exist as media and be replaced by things that I approve of. I practice what I am preaching by not buying OSC's stuff. I wish everyone agreed with me, but I don't think that because they don't they need to be deprived of their shitty science fiction because I am morally right and they are morally wrong (although they totally are and I totally am).
I'll wait right here.
God damn Regina, can you try to have your cake and eat it too any more than you are? Anyone else critiques something and they're literally practicing censorship and trying to control the creative works of others, but YOU telling people that OSC is a shitty hack is just fine.
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!
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
Like I said, I don't see the confusion at all. There is "I don't like this" and there is "I don't like this, you need to change. You all need to change. Adjust to match me."
You are not doing the former, you're doing the latter.
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.
I've had my fill of being the stand-in for every sexist person.
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.
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.
Kana on
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
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).
I've had my fill of being the stand-in for every sexist person.
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.
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?
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.
Gears 3 was decent about its inclusion of female characters, given that the previous games were all about huge dudes. There was almost always at least one female character in the squad, and Anya and Sam could fight just as well as the rest of the Gears. The lead writer for the game was a woman.
Unfortunately, the RAAM'S Shadow DLC and Judgment game that followed were uncomfortably poor. DLC spoilers:
Valera, the one female character, is the only one to get killed off, and for no good reason other than to give Jace some character development.
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):
She gets fridged offscreen sometime after the main campaign ends. Just like in the RAAM's Shadow DLC, the one female squadmate is the only one to die. Technically she gets kidnapped by strange men in post-apocalyptic ruins, so perhaps she was raped instead of murdered.
After Gears 3 made an effort to be inclusive, I was surprised how little respect the followup game/DLC had for its female characters.
Hasn't OSC admitted defeat on the whole gay marriage thing? I know it is fun to paint people as villains, but I think hes more "old guy behind the times."
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."
Gears 3 was decent about its inclusion of female characters, given that the previous games were all about huge dudes. There was almost always at least one female character in the squad, and Anya and Sam could fight just as well as the rest of the Gears. The lead writer for the game was a woman.
Unfortunately, the RAAM'S Shadow DLC and Judgment game that followed were uncomfortably poor. DLC spoilers:
Valera, the one female character, is the only one to get killed off, and for no good reason other than to give Jace some character development.
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):
She gets fridged offscreen sometime after the main campaign ends. Just like in the RAAM's Shadow DLC, the one female squadmate is the only one to die. Technically she gets kidnapped by strange men in post-apocalyptic ruins, so perhaps she was raped instead of murdered.
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
heroically saving one of her male squadmates
. The problem with how they met their ends is two fold. First: Sofia
was kidnapped
, thereby robbing her of her agency and converting her from soldier to victim. Second: Val's death means that women, despite being only, what... 20% of the main cast? suffered 100% of the casualties. Had the casualties been spread more evenly across the sexes and had Sofia not died a victim, I don't think anyone would cite these two Gears DLC titles as being problematic.
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.
Hasn't OSC admitted defeat on the whole gay marriage thing? I know it is fun to paint people as villains, but I think hes more "old guy behind the times."
Worst "apology" ever.
Ender’s Game is set more than a century in the future and has nothing to do with political issues that did not exist when the book was written in 1984. With the recent Supreme Court ruling, the gay marriage issue becomes moot. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution will, sooner or later, give legal force in every state to any marriage contract recognized by any other state. Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute.
This is also at a time when he's got a big budget Ender's Game in theaters.
Harry Dresden on
+5
Options
KwoaruConfident SmirkFlawless Golden PecsRegistered Userregular
Also "behind the times" doesn't begin to cover or excuse being an active and donating member of an organization that campaigns against marriage equality
+6
Options
KalnaurI See Rain . . .Centralia, WARegistered Userregular
I really don't see why Link and Zelda can't be made interchangeable as player characters. Have the one you don't pick get kidnapped.
What would Gannon get out of kidnapping Link? Link doesn't rule over a kingdom or have ancient knowledge of where the Triforce is hidden; is he hoping to snatch Link's fashionable green hat?
In quite a few games Link is already in possession of the Triforce of Courage. If the one of Wisdom is such a pain in the ass to keep under lock and key from the guy in green tights imbued with the sheer power of doing any/everything that might frighten him (the definition of courage being "the ability to do something that frightens one", thus meaning Link will always jump in where angels fear to tread) and always come out rescuing the princess, you'd think that the endlessly reincarnating manifestation of Demise's hatred would, at some point, remember that and capture and imprison the fucker in one of those magical crystal prisons he likes so much. Plus, then he once again has two Triforce pieces, only this time having Power and Courage under his sway, and being opposed by Wisdom.
I think you've just detailed why Link is not as viable of a target as you think. Put simply, the holder of the piece of wisdom would be an easier target and it would be far easier to make the holder of the piece of courage come to him than to try to go capture it himself.
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.
I make art things! deviantART:Kalnaur ::: Origin: Kalnaur ::: UPlay: Kalnaur
I've had my fill of being the stand-in for every sexist person.
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.
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?
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.
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."
I really don't see why Link and Zelda can't be made interchangeable as player characters. Have the one you don't pick get kidnapped.
What would Gannon get out of kidnapping Link? Link doesn't rule over a kingdom or have ancient knowledge of where the Triforce is hidden; is he hoping to snatch Link's fashionable green hat?
In quite a few games Link is already in possession of the Triforce of Courage. If the one of Wisdom is such a pain in the ass to keep under lock and key from the guy in green tights imbued with the sheer power of doing any/everything that might frighten him (the definition of courage being "the ability to do something that frightens one", thus meaning Link will always jump in where angels fear to tread) and always come out rescuing the princess, you'd think that the endlessly reincarnating manifestation of Demise's hatred would, at some point, remember that and capture and imprison the fucker in one of those magical crystal prisons he likes so much. Plus, then he once again has two Triforce pieces, only this time having Power and Courage under his sway, and being opposed by Wisdom.
I think you've just detailed why Link is not as viable of a target as you think. Put simply, the holder of the piece of wisdom would be an easier target and it would be far easier to make the holder of the piece of courage come to him than to try to go capture it himself.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
Yeah it's kind of similar to the argument that the Dead or Alive characters are just being liberated and it's sexist to say that women should dress a certain way
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.
I've had my fill of being the stand-in for every sexist person.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The last couple pages make me want to slap various peoples and so I think we're done here.
Thanks for playing!
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
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.
But this argument only makes this distinction when you have some kind of inane implication that I have a feminist Gestapo somewhere that is capable of forcing change to what I want. What I do is say, I don't like this and this is my reasons and can you maybe do something more positive? In reality, any distinction is a fabrication entirely in your head that doesn't really exist. I have absolutely no power to force anyone in the games industry to do anything. None of us posting do.
And I can assure you, women in the industry haven't much further power in many places (see the infinite number of #1reasonwhy articles).
So I can't stop OSC from doing anything, other than realizing that he has reprehensible views and actively tries to enact those views on people - so I shouldn't support him. By not supporting him because of his awful views am I being a member of the "thought police?", because we are doing nothing different in the long run. OSC doesn't care about you or me, but both of us think he's an awful hack and a bigot we shouldn't support.
I happen to think the same about the way some video games depict women, so I don't support them. Do I have any ability to "feminist Gestapo" rock star? Nope, they will be rolling around naked in puppies with vests made from $100 bills. Does the general mass of gamers who viciously and terribly attack people with minority views have any power? Yes, they certainly can do in their war to intimidate, threaten and harass people who dare to say "Maybe this gigantic open world game having absolutely no significant women is a problem, but the game is so awesome I give it a 9.0".
The laughable thing here is that you are ascribing the thought police to the entirely wrong segment of people who talk about games: It's not those offering informed actual criticism. Most of whom really can't actually effect any significant change in the sense of being "thought police" unless, possibly what worries you, what they are saying actually has merit that does resonate with people who make games.
What a horrifying thought. At least more merit than the response to Carolyn's review that produced this feedbackula.
And this is REALLY applicable to this discussion. Not the first part, but the part about criticism.
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!