Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
The big Phil Fish, Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian discussion thread
Comments
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,741 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 28450
Retr0gamer wrote: »The problem with Anita's videos is she is a feminist which suggests an agenda and bias and she pretty much shows this in her videos where she presents evidence to back up the conclusions she as already made. There's no grey areas, counter arguments or analysis meaning the whole thing is unscientific and entirely worthless.
This is an incredibly problematic point of view. This isn't a scientific study. 'Cultural criticism' is a thing - in fact it's a major thing that dedicated academic schools have sprung up to explore, alongside the vast amounts of more casual examples. Marxism, feminism, philosophy, politics and many other schools of thought of thought have been used to offer some of the most fascinating, intelligent and even revolutionary formal and sociological readings of art and media. People with an ill-disguised feminist 'agenda' have gone on to make some of the most radical, progressive, important and straight-up wonderful works of contemporary times - take filmmakers like Agnes Varda, Jane Campion, Chantal Akerman and others. Feminist theory and writing has changed the way we think about art, and even the very form of the art itself - it is so very far from 'worthless', and all without offering counter arguments. If you want a coldly neutral, rigorous study, a study in one of the scientific fields is where you want to be looking, not a series of accessible YouTube videos with a very clearly defined set of parameters and perspective.
That's not even going into the clear impact the feminist movement has had in real-world social and political terms - and given some of the controversies raging at the moment, it's not going to be rendered a redundant school of thought any time soon. It pushes for equality above all - and when the world is this unequal, sometimes 'scientific balance' is not something that can be reasonably factored in.
All that said, I'd actually say Anita's videos are very generous with evidence - when identifying the tropes, she tends to provide dozens and dozens of examples of games where they apply. There are times when she stretches aspects of her argument thin, but for the most part the length of the videos is used to offer examples upon examples and to give the opportunity some clear, straightforward commentary on them.
I'm always very curious to see the evidence that these tropes don't exist and why it isn't important to highlight them. No doubt there are quite a few individual games that have an excellent handle on their portrayal of female characters, but even with a slowly changing tide these are more exceptions than the rules (and the Tropes series has acknowledged them when the opportunity arises, even though that's not its primary function). I've been fascinated at how definitively Anita has highlighted some of the tropes - there's an insane amount of games, for example, that create female characters by slapping a bow or the colour pink on an existing male one. Maybe people refute that being a bad thing, but it's most definitely a thing worth drawing attention to and having a conversation about.
Games will definitely be better when developers learn to express themselves in different, varied ways; when strongly defined female characters are more of a rule than an exception; and when games capture a whole range of different ideologies and perspectives the way other media does. I'd go as far as calling that a pretty much irrefutable fact. Things are changing for the better, but slowly, so the discussion needs to keep happening.
In some ways Sarkeesian's commentary are basic and relatively crude, certainly in comparison to the deeper formal analyses employed by many of the great feminist cultural theorists. But it's also vitally important that these issues are raised in a more mainstream context as opposed to the inherently niche realm of academia. Sarkessian's greatest achievement is starting a very public conversation - one game developers of note are actually listening to. No doubt her work will be succeeded by more in-depth and radical studies - perhaps they're already happening in quieter corners. For now, though, she's kicking off an important discussion in a way few before her have managed.0 -
Absolution's treatment of women is pretty shoddy. There was a good recent link on this that I'll post when I'm not at work.
And again in case you missed it if your goal is to do something to an academic standard criticising that it's not up to that standard is a legitimate criticism.0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »This is an incredibly problematic point of view. This isn't a scientific study. 'Cultural criticism' is a thing - in fact it's a major thing that dedicated academic schools have sprung up to explore, alongside the vast amounts of more casual examples. Marxism, feminism, philosophy, politics and many other schools of thought of thought have been used to offer some of the most fascinating, intelligent and even revolutionary formal and sociological readings of art and media. People with an ill-disguised feminist 'agenda' have gone on to make some of the most radical, progressive, important and straight-up wonderful works of contemporary times - take filmmakers like Agnes Varda, Jane Campion, Chantal Akerman and others. Feminist theory and writing has changed the way we think about art, and even the very form of the art itself - it is so very far from 'worthless', and all without offering counter arguments. If you want a coldly neutral, rigorous study, a study in one of the scientific fields is where you want to be looking, not a series of accessible YouTube videos with a very clearly defined set of parameters and perspective.
To be fair and blunt, mentioning Saarkesian in the same breath as academic feminist writers is equivalent to mentioning I ****ing Love Science in the same breath as the work done at CERN.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,741 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 28450
To be fair and blunt, mentioning Saarkesian in the same breath as academic feminist writers is equivalent to mentioning I ****ing Love Science in the same breath as the work done at CERN.
Which is exactly why I pointed out:In some ways Sarkeesian's commentary are basic and relatively crude, certainly in comparison to the deeper formal analyses employed by many of the great feminist cultural theorists
'Some ways' perhaps being a bit generous. I don't think anyone believes Anita Saarkesian's series offers brilliant feminist theorising on the level of the truly great voices in the field (I haven't read her thesis, so can't express any opinion on how she has managed in a more academic field)
But my opening paragraph was inspired by the fact that it seems as if feminism in general needs some defending here :pac:0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »Which is exactly why I pointed out:
'Some ways' perhaps being a bit generous. I don't think anyone believes Anita Saarkesian's series offers brilliant feminist theorising on the level of the truly great voices in the field (I haven't read her thesis, so can't express any opinion on how she has managed in a more academic field)
But my opening paragraph was inspired by the fact that it seems as if feminism in general needs some defending here :pac:
No, but in too many places including here any attack on her is seen as an attack on feminism by some.0 -
While we're on the subject:
Writers: Anita Sarkeesian & Jonathan McIntosh0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,741 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 28450
No, but in too many places including here any attack on her is seen as an attack on feminism by some.
There are definitely valid criticisms to be leveled against her videos, all without being an attack on feminism. People are always encouraged to articulate them.
However some comments like "also feminism is fine, being a feminist means you are going into it with an agenda already. Both are different and both aren't necessarily bad. This critique could definitely be done by a feminist but to do that you have to leave any bias at the door" illustrate to me a fundamental misunderstanding of how feminism has worked (and often worked wonders) since its inception, and a need for some defense.0 -
johnny_ultimate wrote: »There are definitely valid criticisms to be leveled against her videos, all without being an attack on feminism. People are always encouraged to articulate them.
However some comments like "also feminism is fine, being a feminist means you are going into it with an agenda already. Both are different and both aren't necessarily bad. This critique could definitely be done by a feminist but to do that you have to leave any bias at the door" illustrate to me a fundamental misunderstanding of how feminism has worked (and often worked wonders) since its inception, and a need for some defense.
I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Saying her videos are overly biased towards one particular feminist viewpoint isn't saying that there can be no bias.0 -
gaming and social issues go together like shit in a sundae0
-
Join Date:Posts: 51050
johnny_ultimate wrote: »However some comments like "also feminism is fine, being a feminist means you are going into it with an agenda already. Both are different and both aren't necessarily bad. This critique could definitely be done by a feminist but to do that you have to leave any bias at the door" illustrate to me a fundamental misunderstanding of how feminism has worked (and often worked wonders) since its inception, and a need for some defense.
I'm not saying feminism is a bad thing, I'm all for it. The problem is if you are going to analysis anything scientifically then you've got to go in looking for evidence and finding a conclusion from the evidence, not looking for evidence to prove a conclusion. If you have an agenda then you'll inevitably end up doing the later which leads to falsehoods and inaccuracies. Anita is pretty much doing the later which just totally invalidates anything she is doing. it's pretty much worthless. It's the same thing as a creationist preforming a study on evolution. I'm not saying a creationist couldn't study evolution but you have to leave that at the door. Observe then draw conclusions based on those observations The thing is that the topic isn't black and white like Anita represents but a grey area that really deserves a better critical analysis.
Feminism has gotten a bad rep lately thanks to some militant feminists tarnishing it and I don't want to come off as some one turning their nose up at feminism. However I do think that Anita's videos are nearly devoid of any worth and if she wants to make a learning curriculum out of it she needs to try a lot harder.0 -
Advertisement
-
Retr0gamer wrote: »I'm not saying feminism is a bad thing, I'm all for it. The problem is if you are going to analysis anything scientifically then you've got to go in looking for evidence and finding a conclusion from the evidence, not looking for evidence to prove a conclusion. If you have an agenda then you'll inevitably end up doing the later which leads to falsehoods and inaccuracies. Anita is pretty much doing the later which just totally invalidates anything she is doing. it's pretty much worthless. It's the same thing as a creationist preforming a study on evolution. I'm not saying a creationist couldn't study evolution but you have to leave that at the door. Observe then draw conclusions based on those observations The thing is that the topic isn't black and white like Anita represents but a grey area that really deserves a better critical analysis.
You can't analyize the representation of women in games "scientifically"; you can bring some scientific tools to bear on the task occasionally - through quantitative analysis for instance - but you're dealing with a cultural form, and interprations of games and games culture will always involve subjective judgments, not irrefutable facts. Feminism is in this case a theoretical framework which shapes Sarkessian's analysis, not a "bias" that clouds her vision.0 -
Radiosonde wrote: »You can't analyize the representation of women in games "scientifically"; you can bring some scientific tools to bear on the task occasionally - through quantitative analysis for instance - but you're dealing with a cultural form, and interprations of games and games culture will always involve subjective judgments, not irrefutable facts. Feminism is in this case a theoretical framework which shapes Sarkessian's analysis, not a "bias" that clouds her vision.
But this is the thing. Sarkeesian goes in with the intention of finding examples to suit an opinion she has long ago formed. She doesn't look for general evidence for and against. She actively ignores anything that refutes her point because she's only looking to prove the viewpoint she has. The bias may not be feminism related, maybe its just her inability to approach a study in an objective manner.
Its not subjective interpretation of the facets of gaming culture. Its subjective view on gaming as a whole before she even started her ridiculously funded "study" etc.)
(I have to add I don't think many intelligent people have any issue with the feminism slant or even the content of the series. But the way in which she goes about it and the bias in her reports.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 8399
Radiosonde wrote: »You can't analyize the representation of women in games "scientifically"; you can bring some scientific tools to bear on the task occasionally - through quantitative analysis for instance - but you're dealing with a cultural form, and interprations of games and games culture will always involve subjective judgments, not irrefutable facts. Feminism is in this case a theoretical framework which shapes Sarkessian's analysis, not a "bias" that clouds her vision.
You can refer to the bucket loads of research out there. Research the research if you will and cite it. Take a simple example like the classic boob armour. If you want to argue that a female in a game with boob armour is going to make gamers think less of women then you need to back it up instead of simply saying games affect attitudes to women like it's a fact. Ask the questions. Is boob armour simply an artist's craft or is it more serious? How are females with armour portrayed by female developers? Have they a good record or a bad record? Is this because they had to toe the line to survive? Has there been any research done on how it may or may not affect male gamers' attitudes to women as result? Is it possible that boob armour is relatively harmless? This is the kind of discussion I would like to see.
If the question is simply to catalog any instances of women being portrayed as inferior to men in games then fine give any of us $160000 and we'll be able to do it. But to ask difficult questions and discuss them even if we don't have definite answers especially to ask questions that might not serve your agenda has value. Not to simply say boob armour is bad because as we all know gaming does affect our attitudes.
I have no extensive knowledge of feminism but I am one of hopefully many people that is open to being educated as to what the important issues are. Don't simply point at things and preach about them. Educate people. I honestly think Anita Sarkeesian's approach is more damaging than helpful. Perhaps as johnny_ultimate says it has gotten people discussing it but I'm not optimistic. I've seen videos where people say she is criticised because she is woman and a threat to male gamers so they react defensively. He even compared her to Rosa Parks. Don't even get me started on that one.0 -
Isn't a scientific critique of art a complete oxymoron? There are no algorithms or methods to prove whether something is moral or valuable to culture at large which is why subjective analysis and discourse is so important.
"The stop bringing your own agenda!" argument once more reminds me of this:But this is the thing. Sarkeesian goes in with the intention of finding examples to suit an opinion she has long ago formed.She doesn't look for general evidence for and against. She actively ignores anything that refutes her point because she's only looking to prove the viewpoint she has.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,741 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 28450
[/B]
She actively ignores anything that refutes her point because she's only looking to prove the viewpoint she has. The bias may not be feminism related, maybe its just her inability to approach a study in an objective manner.
The study makes no pretenses of being totally scientifically objective, though - very few pieces of cultural critique would, because that's not how it works. It's as much a personal response as it is a theoretical one. I have little doubt that Sarkeesian's terms are based on many years of observation, analysis and indeed play, during which she has reached her own conclusions and is now expanding on them. After all, we've all independently come to our own conclusions about the 'state of gaming', and I'm sure many people were concerned about these types of issues well before Sarkeesian launched her kickstarter campaign.
It's unfair to suggest she doesn't address points that refute her own. She has taken the time in almost all her videos to acknowledge and comment on the most common rebuttals and criticisms to the points she is making. She has also on several occasions taken the opportunity to point out games that do challenge or step beyond the tropes (there's a positive section on Papa & Yo in the latest video), and indeed a whole video later in the series is set to focus entirely on 'positive female characters', so it's not unreasonable to expect her to point out positives in games she has already criticised (as she has stressed repeatedly, it's wholly possible to enjoy a game while finding issue with certain aspects of it). Indeed, one of the problems here is that we're talking about an incomplete series, and truly definitive conclusions on its range and success will have to wait until its done in the - distant, it seems - future.
I'd liken it to a school or college debate. A team's first goal is to express their point of view, and then rebut. That's what as far as I'm concerned Sarkeesian is doing here - laying out her cards and point of view, while taking the time to address some of the rebuttals. You need to stand your ground. It's a defensive approach as much as offensive, but then most writers or authors have to be be willing to stand up for their convictions and express themselves in a clear and concise manner (although the latter is not something we can accuse Tropes vs Video Games of ). From a personal perspective, I fear one of the main reasons she doesn't present more counter examples is that they're actually quite thin on the ground - and it's very difficult to point out examples of works that are in opposition to tropes unless they explicitly make an effort to do so.
As I said earlier, to me what's so useful about the series is that it's being offered in such an easily digestible form - full of straightforward language and copious amounts of clips to accompany the points. Making the arguments in an accessible manner has already gotten the issues a lot more attention and wider discussions than any rigorous academic study on the topic ever will (and I'd also agree with Radiosonde a rigorous academic study would be quite limited in its ability to explore these types of issues anyway). I can only restress that I think there's a whole lot of room for improvement in terms of gaming criticism generally, and I look forward to more critics exploring this sort of territory in fresh and innovative ways.0 -
Evade wrote:Which is why I said it does have problems. However according to one of Anita's more recent videos the objective of one of the levels of the game is to kill some strippers and play with their corpses, it isn't.
And here's the link on Absolution's treatment of women.To be fair and blunt, mentioning Saarkesian in the same breath as academic feminist writers is equivalent to mentioning I ****ing Love Science in the same breath as the work done at CERN.BMMachine wrote:gaming and social issues go together like **** in a sundae
Which is why these videos exist. Sarkeesian didn't invent gender-based tropes or force game developers to use them. (The 'damsel in distress', for example, has quite obviously featured in the industry for decades now.) She's just drawing attention to what developers have been doing for decades and popularising a framework for interpreting this.Retr0gamer wrote:The problem is if you are going to analysis anything scientifically then you've got to go in looking for evidence and finding a conclusion from the evidence, not looking for evidence to prove a conclusion. If you have an agenda then you'll inevitably end up doing the later which leads to falsehoods and inaccuracies.
That sort of 'fact' based approach (wie es eigentlich, as historians say) has been considered old fashioned since the 1960s. Partly because of the acknowledgement that everyone brings a bias to the table. As I asked earlier, how is Sarkeesian more biased than those male journalists who for decades failed to write about exactly the sort of issues that are now impossible to ignore? Explicitly feminist (and other -ist) critiques have provided invaluable insights across a range of fields precisely because they establish viewpoints that differ from the 'scientific' (ie white male) view that previously dominated.
So you say that you are 'all for feminism' but it seems that this enthusiasm only lasts until someone produces a specifically feminist critique of something you enjoy. In which case they're no better than creationists - ideological crusaders crafting false arguments.Timmyctc wrote:She doesn't look for general evidence for and against. She actively ignores anything that refutes her point because she's only looking to prove the viewpoint she has
People keep calling for 'balance' but the aim of this series is not to provide an overview of the games industry or even sexism within that. It's to look at these specific cultural tropes and their role in games. That's the scope that she's working to and she'd provided plenty of evidence for each of the games mentioned.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51050
Radiosonde wrote: »You can't analyize the representation of women in games "scientifically"; you can bring some scientific tools to bear on the task occasionally - through quantitative analysis for instance - but you're dealing with a cultural form, and interprations of games and games culture will always involve subjective judgments, not irrefutable facts.
Yes you can analyse it scientifically and it should be. Just because sciences like psychology and sociology don't have answers with cold hard numbers doesn't mean they are any less scientific. There's a way of approaching research which is in place to ensure that a study is carried out with no bias and that it is as scientifically accurate as possible. It's there for that reason and the Anita fails to follow it leading to all the problems with her videos. You may not be able to get irrefutable facts and figures but you can compare trends and your findings with the findings of others. Subjective judgements and interpretations are fine as long as they aren't presented as fact and as long as they are backed up with evidence and explanations.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51050
That sort of 'fact' based approach (wie es eigentlich, as historians say) has been considered old fashioned since the 1960s.
Wie es eigentlich doesn't excuse bias in a study.So you say that you are 'all for feminism' but it seems that this enthusiasm only lasts until someone produces a specifically feminist critique of something you enjoy. In which case they're no better than creationists - ideological crusaders crafting false arguments.
What Anita is doing is far from scientific which is my problem, not that it's about videogames. I'd actually welcome a far better criticism which is entirely my point.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,741 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 28450
Can we clarify what type of evidence we're talking about here? The latest video offers lengthy clips from 30 different games to back up the points she makes, which to me is more than sufficient to support her commentary and general concepts.Retr0gamer wrote:What Anita is doing is far from scientific which is my problem
Cultural criticism in general is far from scientific, and I doubt its foremost practitioners would argue otherwise0 -
Advertisement
-
Eh, no she doesn't. Not unless you've confused 'objective' with 'objectification'. Hitman was used to illustrate how developers provide players with settings (eg strip clubs) and objects (eg scantily clad strippers) to implicitly encourage violence against empty sexual objects. Now you can agree or disagree with Sarkeesian but let's not misinterpret her point.And here's the link on Absolution's treatment of women.Are you suggesting that an introductory youTube series called 'Tropes vs. Women in Video Games' isn't up there with heavyweight academic works?0
-
Does anyone else remember when this thread used to be about Phil Fish?0
-
Join Date:Posts: 51050
With referencing. It's not exactly difficult to point out sexist tropes in games or other piece of media. Asking the questions about the effects this has on people and society is when you've got to be thorough in your analysis and reference. I don't even think that would be that difficult since games don't differ much from literature or visual arts, the groundwork is already laid out there in terms of what has been written. For a YouTube video you don't have to go too indepty but you still need to support your arguments.
However I think an even bigger failing of Anita's work is that all she is capable of is pointing out tropes. Big deal. The real question is what are the effects of these tropes. It's so etching she rarely touches on and when she does its backed up extremely poorly. There's tonnes of great research done on this area that she can draw on, look at parallels with other media or the effect of desensitising a trope can have, but without that its just a vapid series of YouTube videos that might as well be an extended sexism series on 'did you know gaming'.0 -
I found myself agreeing with all the points in her video but found some of the examples used to be somewhat unsatisfactory. The inclusion of Bioshock in particular didn't really make sense. The character Jasmine Jolene isn't decoration, she'sJack's motherand she's not a stripper either, she's a singer. I don't really see how the corpses are sexualised either, they're certainly gruesome but not remotely erotic in comparison to the fashion magazines she used as examples.
A lot of her examples in other games support her arguments very well, I find it frustrating when it seems like she stretches certain games just trying to find something, it reeks of confirmation bias, which is unnecessary when there's so many other, valid examples she can and does use.0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »Wie es eigentlich doesn't excuse bias in a study.
Which is why, since the 1960s, the onus has shifted from simply recording facts/evidence to developing new theoretical models and frameworks to interpret these. Obviously any theories need to be supported by evidence (which I believe the points in question are) but it is not a case of coming to the evidence with a blank mind. Because that is an impossibility.However I think an even bigger failing of Anita's work is that all she is capable of is pointing out tropes. Big deal. The real question is what are the effects of these tropes. It's so etching she rarely touches on and when she does its backed up extremely poorly.
It's an introductory work that examines narrative tropes in computer games from a feminist perspective. The series doesn't pretend to be anything else. If you're already past that stage then fine. Feel free to move on to some more advanced works. But it's pretty clear from the outrage and discussion that the videos have generated that there are plenty of gamers that are not, and that have not seriously considered the prominence of sexist tropes in the medium that we all enjoy.Evade wrote:The game actively discourages violence against those women in the form of a penalty to your over all score for the level. There is no incentive in the game to kill those women, Anita made it up.
Her point was that these virtual environments are there to allow the player to indulge in, at best, digital voyeurism. The choice was the players to indulge as they wish - but someone had set the scene and facilitated them in doing so.Then again most Youtube series are not trying to get those series on to school and college curricula.
Sarkeesian's previous videos have been used, without her advocacy, by parents and teachers to illustrate feminist critiques of popular culture. That is not the same as creating an academic work for inclusion on a set curricula. You might as well berate Notch for not making Minecraft more 'educational', despite its subsequent use in many schools.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51050
That's because the focus of the entire series is 'pointing out tropes' and not studying 'the effects of these tropes'. Really, that's it. You can't criticise someone for 'poor research' and 'lacking objectivity' for doing exactly what they said they would do.
True, perhaps I'm expecting too much. I just do not see any point in pointing out these tropes and not dealing with them or creating any kind of discussion. Everything she has said has been very obvious. She's even missed pointing out less obvious tropes like the ms male video and not looking at women who just act like men in games.
Meh, file under missed opportunity then. I'll keep watching to see if they improve.0 -
Advertisement
-
So why were those women there in that setting? Why was that environment explicitly set up to allow you to kill them?
Her point was that these virtual environments are there to allow the player to indulge in, at best, digital voyeurism. The choice was the players to indulge as they wish - but someone had set the scene and facilitated them in doing so.Why do you keep saying that?
Sarkeesian's previous videos have been used, without her advocacy, by parents and teachers to illustrate feminist critiques of popular culture. That is not the same as creating an academic work for inclusion on a set curricula. You might as well berate Notch for not making Minecraft more 'educational', despite its subsequent use in many schools.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,741 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 28450
Retr0gamer wrote: »She's even missed pointing out less obvious tropes like the ms male video and not looking at women who just act like men in games.
Actually, the 'Ms Male' trope already has a video (http://youtu.be/eYqYLfm1rWA) and 'man with boobs' is one of the listed planned videos on the original Kickstarter page (which I imagine will be the whole women who act like men angle)
Edit: sorry, might have missed out on the meaning of your post there with the link.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51050
Just finished watching the women as background decoration video. Some real embarrassing stuff there, well for anyone calling themselves a gamer. Videogames need to be written by less man children.
Anyway at the end of that video Anita started to touch on a what I want to see, the effects on society of what she was talking about. Unfortnately she only gave it about 3 minutes worth of time. It's far more important and interesting than the tropes she was pointing out. I hope she goes into it In a lot more detail later on.0 -
so at the crux of it, a guy very few people liked got doxxed and f**ked over by a load of angry gamers because he defended a friend (probably "the straw that broke the camels back") and now has to sell his company. there seems to be a feminist/gamer side issue going on too about that girl who made some videos about sexist games and gamers.
from my (pretty vast) experience with the average gamer they are literally the last people I would ever listen to about any kind of important thing ever. I know that seems pretty sweeping and a lot of you guys will react negatively, but Im not talking about you. Look at you conversing in quite logical and thought out manners on this forum, you aren't the average moron who quite literally infests gaming servers and lowbrow troll forums like reddit and 4chan. you are very much in the minority though, which is the problem. so as long as the larger problem (young angry male gamers filled with spite) then yeah, sexism and stupidity and destroying peoples lives will continue unabated and theres damn near nothing you can do about it. its such a reactionary and over the top audience (look at that girl you are talking about, got what, $150,000 for a startup? and at the same time gets completely railed by thousands - thats far far far too reactionary for the actual content and message, on both sides) that the smallest things cause peoples brains to explode. I suppose it is to do with how easy it is to voice an opinion to an audience nowadays that in order to get noticed you need this extremism, or at least think you do.
I feel sorry for the guy, even if he was a tool (i don't know that so i wont judge) and as for the whole sexism in games goes, yeah, its one of the worst offenders by miles.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 51050
-
Advertisement
-
from my (pretty vast) experience with the average gamer they are literally the last people I would ever listen to about any kind of important thing ever. I know that seems pretty sweeping and a lot of you guys will react negatively, but Im not talking about you. Look at you conversing in quite logical and thought out manners on this forum, you aren't the average moron who quite literally infests gaming servers and lowbrow troll forums like reddit and 4chan. you are very much in the minority though, which is the problem.
Is the average gamer just not the average person (well... average male under the age of around 40 or so)? They way you describe angry troll-like people seem to me to be respective of large internet communities as a whole. I'd argue thatthe issue with bulk of people's inflamed reactions is related to anonymity and how it allows users to basically vomit out their angry thoughts without any fear of consequence. I also don't think it's fair to call these people a majority at all, they're just loud and vulgar, and thus stand out. It's a shame that their voices end up being loud but the best way to deal with it is just to mock or ignore it to be honest. I think that's why Boards works for the most part, because we mock/ignore the majority of the eejits.0 -
the incredible pudding wrote: »Is the average gamer just not the average person (well... average male under the age of around 40 or so)? They way you describe angry troll-like people seem to me to be respective of large internet communities as a whole. I'd argue thatthe issue with bulk of people's inflamed reactions is related to anonymity and how it allows users to basically vomit out their angry thoughts without any fear of consequence. I also don't think it's fair to call these people a majority at all, they're just loud and vulgar, and thus stand out. It's a shame that their voices end up being loud but the best way to deal with it is just to mock or ignore it to be honest. I think that's why Boards works for the most part, because we mock/ignore the majority of the eejits.
you are actually right there. I would say then the vocal majority, as in those that actually comment on the internet are what im talking about. there is an awful amount of crap posted, far more then actually useful and informative stuff online. online gaming to me is also just full of the worst people, id honestly say that id actually get a long with about 1 in 10 people i play with, the rest are just carbon copies of themselves - angry over sexualised individuals with downloaded personalities. they say the same things, act the same way, react the same way and are just a problem.
another problem that is related to that kind of thing is that its infectious. people think that its the proper way to act just because everyone else is doing it so you get entire generations of sheep. theres always an "accepted line" with these communities and it absolutely disgusts me that this is the case. the accepted line in this scenario is "Phil Fish deserved this" (not here per se but amoungst the dribblers) and its that non-chalant "its the internet and its my right to be a lowbrow dribbling troll" attitude which can destroy peoples lives and leads to extremely nasty sexism and racism.
to me its just dumbculture getting its way again. drag people down, be spiteful, rail against any individuality and always follow the accepted line.0 -
you are actually right there. I would say then the vocal majority, as in those that actually comment on the internet are what im talking about. there is an awful amount of crap posted, far more then actually useful and informative stuff online. online gaming to me is also just full of the worst people, id honestly say that id actually get a long with about 1 in 10 people i play with, the rest are just carbon copies of themselves - angry over sexualised individuals with downloaded personalities. they say the same things, act the same way, react the same way and are just a problem.
another problem that is related to that kind of thing is that its infectious. people think that its the proper way to act just because everyone else is doing it so you get entire generations of sheep. theres always an "accepted line" with these communities and it absolutely disgusts me that this is the case. the accepted line in this scenario is "Phil Fish deserved this" (not here per se but amoungst the dribblers) and its that non-chalant "its the internet and its my right to be a lowbrow dribbling troll" attitude which can destroy peoples lives and leads to extremely nasty sexism and racism.
to me its just dumbculture getting its way again. drag people down, be spiteful, rail against any individuality and always follow the accepted line.
For your own sake stay away from Political reddits and the like around election time if gamers have you this negative.0 -
-
barge pole
I think following this twitter is a good rule of thumb too.0 -
Reading this thread makes me thankful I don't keep up with the worthless behind the scenes drama of being a "gamer". What a load of utter nonsense.0
-
I don't know who Phil Fish is and I've never played Fez so his threat never to make Fez 2 is...underwhelming. So I don't appreciate the "Kony 2012" rage this man seems to inspire. If Phil Fish is a giant self entitled dick, then he's just reflecting the online community for most games. People need to grow up and develop thicker skins.
Most individual game devs really don't need individual gamers as much as individual gamers believe they do. That said, it going by the OP it seems like the online community is living up to his low expectations of them.
You should watch the film called Indie Game.
I had heard of him before it and knew he made Fez, but he came across so bad in the film, I never seen anything like it in a documentary.
All the other Dev's came across great, and you really felt for the guys making Super Meat Boy and the pressure really got to them, one lad in particular was a wreck by the games release.
But Fish, it was impossible to like him watching the film, he was in a blind rage cursing people and saying he would kill himself if things didn't go his way...0 -
Nah, the comments make sure you stay thinking 18 is too low for the voting age. :P0 -
Excellent twitter account, thanks for the link0 -
Having watched 3+ hours of Anita and 3+ hours of the most popular Anti-Anita videos I have to say her points/arguments/examples are built on shakey ground at best.
Also if anyone is going to consider her an academic then I'd like to see a few point addressed:- She doesn't write her own work as I mentioned before
- She doesn't own the games or even the rights to the game footage she uses to make her points, it's blatant Plagiarism http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
- She has not played the games she uses in her videos and that is obvious - Check out her Bayonetta standalone review
- She establishes "groupings" when there are games that are "outliers" which do not fit her rhetoric - One (of many) example being defining what the "Core" Zelda games are to refute that Zelda herself ever starred in her own CDi game.
- She tries to preemept counter arguments by mentioning games that go against her point but they literally "dismissed" in both the time-devoted, context-lacking and even down to her tone of voice and expression. It reeks of a poor mans offensive-defense, "I know these things exists so don't even bother citing them as examples" *dip of the eyebrow, half smile*
She over labours her points and has a massive tendency to use overly long, multiple sentence-break, high syllable count sentences and words to establish a level of importance in her words that is inflated.
Anyone with a good grasp of politics and english will know this is an issue and is used as a "convincer" as it psychological makes you feel like you are bering spoken to by a Teacher and you regress to an "guilty info-sponge" state.... I could go on about this more but whoever knows what I'm talking about will know and whoever thinks this is a non-point will still think that (ironically this point is an example of what she does :pac: )
She clearly has an agenda, I liken it to watching a school debate team where only one team turns up.
Many on this thread have pointed to the Evidence/Conclusion issue and I think this is spot on.
Also, maybe it's just me but i reckon i'd take her at least a little bit more seriously if she was more concise.
75+ minutes on one subject is too much. If she can't make her point in 1/2 that time, that to me, shows her in a bad light.
I would barely even consider her a journalist, never mind an academic.
The only positives to come out of this are that people are discussing it.
But she's done damage to the actual serious debate by sensationalising her overly laboured points.
People are going to dismiss her points hand over fist more and more as the flaws in her videos are pointed out. Looking at her youtube figures her viewship is dropping in a way not in line with what one would expect from the time between videos
TL:DR, her videos are so un-acedimic it's laughable, she's raised some valid points but buried them in bad examples, she has started good conversations but I do not believe she should be considered as a serious insight into inherent sexism in the gaming industry
Edit: Perhaps this should be broken out into a thread of it's own.... we're nowhere near Phil Fish territory anymore and unlikely to return0 -
Advertisement
-
Having watched 3+ hours of Anita and 3+ hours of the most popular Anti-Anita videos I have to say her points/arguments/examples are built on shakey ground at best.
Also if anyone is going to consider her an academic then I'd like to see a few point addressed:- She doesn't write her own work as I mentioned before
- She doesn't own the games or even the rights to the game footage she uses to make her points, it's blatant Plagiarism http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
- She has not played the games she uses in her videos and that is obvious - Check out her Bayonetta standalone review
- She establishes "groupings" when there are games that are "outliers" which do not fit her rhetoric - One (of many) example being defining what the "Core" Zelda games are to refute that Zelda herself ever starred in her own CDi game.
- She tries to preemept counter arguments by mentioning games that go against her point but they literally "dismissed" in both the time-devoted, context-lacking and even down to her tone of voice and expression. It reeks of a poor mans offensive-defense, "I know these things exists so don't even bother citing them as examples" *dip of the eyebrow, half smile*
She over labours her points and has a massive tendency to use overly long, multiple sentence-break, high syllable count sentences and words to establish a level of importance in her words that is inflated.
Anyone with a good grasp of politics and english will know this is an issue and is used as a "convincer" as it psychological makes you feel like you are bering spoken to by a Teacher and you regress to an "guilty info-sponge" state.... I could go on about this more but whoever knows what I'm talking about will know and whoever thinks this is a non-point will still think that (ironically this point is an example of what she does :pac: )
She clearly has an agenda, I liken it to watching a school debate team where only one team turns up.
Many on this thread have pointed to the Evidence/Conclusion issue and I think this is spot on.
Also, maybe it's just me but i reckon i'd take her at least a little bit more seriously if she was more concise.
75+ minutes on one subject is too much. If she can't make her point in 1/2 that time, that to me, shows her in a bad light.
I would barely even consider her a journalist, never mind an academic.
The only positives to come out of this are that people are discussing it.
But she's done damage to the actual serious debate by sensationalising her overly laboured points.
People are going to dismiss her points hand over fist more and more as the flaws in her videos are pointed out. Looking at her youtube figures her viewship is dropping in a way not in line with what one would expect from the time between videos
TL:DR, her videos are so un-acedimic it's laughable, she's raised some valid points but buried them in bad examples, she has started good conversations but I do not believe she should be considered as a serious insight into inherent sexism in the gaming industry
Edit: Perhaps this should be broken out into a thread of it's own.... we're nowhere near Phil Fish territory anymore and unlikely to return
I agree with you and am of the opinion that she has done way more to harm the feminist movement than to help it directly in her drawn out non-expert opinions and videos and indirectly with her relatively small militant following who have made fools of themselves over and over again on various websites and is causing people to dismiss the feminist movement altogether even though they don't represent even a small percentage of the feminists out there, most of whom are working hard for a great cause!0 -
Having watched 3+ hours of Anita and 3+ hours of the most popular Anti-Anita videos I have to say her points/arguments/examples are built on shakey ground at best.
Also if anyone is going to consider her an academic then I'd like to see a few point addressed:- She doesn't write her own work as I mentioned before
- She doesn't own the games or even the rights to the game footage she uses to make her points, it's blatant Plagiarism http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html
- She has not played the games she uses in her videos and that is obvious - Check out her Bayonetta standalone review
- She establishes "groupings" when there are games that are "outliers" which do not fit her rhetoric - One (of many) example being defining what the "Core" Zelda games are to refute that Zelda herself ever starred in her own CDi game.
- She tries to preemept counter arguments by mentioning games that go against her point but they literally "dismissed" in both the time-devoted, context-lacking and even down to her tone of voice and expression. It reeks of a poor mans offensive-defense, "I know these things exists so don't even bother citing them as examples" *dip of the eyebrow, half smile*
She over labours her points and has a massive tendency to use overly long, multiple sentence-break, high syllable count sentences and words to establish a level of importance in her words that is inflated.
Anyone with a good grasp of politics and english will know this is an issue and is used as a "convincer" as it psychological makes you feel like you are bering spoken to by a Teacher and you regress to an "guilty info-sponge" state.... I could go on about this more but whoever knows what I'm talking about will know and whoever thinks this is a non-point will still think that (ironically this point is an example of what she does :pac: )
She clearly has an agenda, I liken it to watching a school debate team where only one team turns up.
Many on this thread have pointed to the Evidence/Conclusion issue and I think this is spot on.
Also, maybe it's just me but i reckon i'd take her at least a little bit more seriously if she was more concise.
75+ minutes on one subject is too much. If she can't make her point in 1/2 that time, that to me, shows her in a bad light.
I would barely even consider her a journalist, never mind an academic.
The only positives to come out of this are that people are discussing it.
But she's done damage to the actual serious debate by sensationalising her overly laboured points.
People are going to dismiss her points hand over fist more and more as the flaws in her videos are pointed out. Looking at her youtube figures her viewship is dropping in a way not in line with what one would expect from the time between videos
TL:DR, her videos are so un-acedimic it's laughable, she's raised some valid points but buried them in bad examples, she has started good conversations but I do not believe she should be considered as a serious insight into inherent sexism in the gaming industry
Edit: Perhaps this should be broken out into a thread of it's own.... we're nowhere near Phil Fish territory anymore and unlikely to return
I watch them with an open mind. I thought her detractors didnt do a great job of highlighting some of the issues and came across badly too.
She raised a good chunk of money for herself for a youtube video that is barley mediocre and seemed to already own the equipment needed.
She doesnt try and convince you of much. She seems to start from a position that she is right and not explain why. The one that sticks out was that having a princess as the goal is sexist but a male prince as the goal is fine as it subverts the trope.
The other point would be that these are not game tropes but general tropes that could be just as easily be blamed on pandering and last writting.0 -
Agree wholeheartedy with all of Cormac's points :P But we were back on Phil Fish topic before you posted that haha0
-
Potatoeman wrote: »She seems to start from a position that she is right and not explain why.
I've been trying to suss out what it is that she does, and what exactly kinda bugs me about her videos. For a while, I though tthat it might be that she only owns a single shirt, but I reckon Potatoeman hit the nail on the head for me there. It's the "I'm right. The end!" kind of vibe she gives off that annoys me.0 -
Agree wholeheartedy with all of Cormac's points :P But we were back on Phil Fish topic before you posted that haha
True, but after doing like 7 hours of research I wanted to row in with what I thought.
But since you agree with me already, can you now give me €6,000 to so I can outline retrospectively why I'm right so you agree even more :pac::pac:0 -
-
id like a girls opinion on Anita0
-
Did a quick search there and there doesn't seem to be any discussion on a thread or forum about Sexism of Feminism for 7-40 months..... looks like it's just us.... Who hear is female?0
-
-
Advertisement
-
id like a girls opinion on Anita
Its hard to get consistent unbiased opinions of her on the net. This brief bit about her on this thread has been probably amongst the most objective I've come across tbh. Most of the girl's opinions I've seen about her have been misinformed or extreme. (Tbh thats the same for all the male opinions on her from 4chan and Reddits circlejerk over hating her)
I've yet to see a proper unbiased review of her work from a femal too. For example recently there was some silly campaign about getting some AAA title to introduce a choice for Female lead character (months into development) and when that obviously didn't happen there was loads of uproar from misinformed fauxministic types assuming that they it was just a matter of implementing a female asset in place of the male character.
It was from these people that I've only seen female opinions on Sarkeesian personally.
The only games my female friends play are generally Pokemon and a few select DS or wii titles. Most wouldn't be that IN to gaming to actually have been acquainted with Sarkeesians work.0
Advertisement