Damsel in Distress - Tropes vs Women in Video Games

KeRbDoG

Via Broadsheet.ie

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toa_vH6xGqs

"Feminism versus FACTS (RE Damsel in distress)"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

Myrddin

Is this a fifty minute critical analyses of the role of women in video games by an American feminist?

o1s1n

I think this is the one she had a kickstarter campaign to get going?

Women in videogames is always a cringe worthy topic. One I find embarrassing for my hobby to be honest.

Haven't watched the video yet but can imagine the exact argument as it's an easy one to make. The only way she could possibly do a bad job on this is if she goes over the top from a feminist stance.

I'm all for women's equal rights, but some of the buzz terms and phrases feminists trot out all the time do my nut in.

KeRbDoG

The one thing I took from it was that a Star Fox on the Gamecube game was meant to be a game with a female hero on the N64

Retr0gamer

o1s1n wrote: »

The only way she could possibly do a bad job on this is if she goes over the top from a feminist stance

Unfortunately she does, and never focuses on any times videogames did it right making it far less of a critical analysis and more of a rant.. She makes good points and then completely ruins it by then making far fetched accusations where she is looking for a sexist angle when there is none. A missed oppurtunity.

o1s1n

Why am I not surprised!

riffmongous

KeRbDoG wrote: »

The one thing I took from it was that a Star Fox on the Gamecube game was meant to be a game with a female hero on the N64

That was amusing in an absurd way 'how about instead of having her as the time travelling hero, we make it a starfox sequel where we put her in a skimpy outfit and suspended animation for the whole game until starfox rescues her'

Andrew76

EnterNow wrote: »

Is this a fifty minute critical analyses of the role of women in video games by an American feminist?

Just wasted 20 mins of my life watching the first one. I can't believe people actually paid for that crap to be made. Her arguments are no different and equally as false as the ones that claim violent games are the cause of violent behaviour.

If anything games have opposite effect, look at all the lads on here dominated by their female partners not allowed to buy this or that. :pac:

The Drunken Destrier

Haven't watched the video, but I tend to agree that women in video games needs to be dealt with better. For instance, I'm playing Arkham City at the moment, and my total excitement of playing as Catwoman was ruined by being forced to look at her child's-body-with-enormous-boobs physique, not to mention the impracticalities of wearing a catsuit zipped down to the ribs.

Is it really necessary to try and make it 'sexy'? It's not even real! It makes me feel embarrassed to play the game, like I'm some weird perv or something.

Retr0gamer

Bit OTT at times but he makes good points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJeX6F-Q63I

krudler

Naughty Dog are one company who do female characters really well, look at Uncharted, Elena and Chloe are two well rounded characters who help Drake out as much as he helps them and are never really much in the damsel in distress role, holding their own in gunfights and letting fly with witty one liners. And then the villain in 3 is a middle aged woman, not a big titted vixen as its so easy to do, yay for female roles with character and a story arc.

wandatowell

Female characters tend to bore me

wandatowell

I was enjoying the second video, until

Every 9 seconds a women is assaulted or beaten in the United states. on average more than 3 women are murdered by their boyfriend, husbands or ex partners everyday

wtf woman?

Myrddin

When the player's princess/girlfriend is taken & the gameplay is the task to rescue her, it essentially means that the characters property was taken & he wants his possession back. Oh ffs, have you ever heard such tripe in all your life? Maybe the character, actually, yknow, loves his girl & wants to save her? God no, that wouldn't be likely.

I'm all for equal rights for any & all gender, creed & race...but ffs, some people just have a complex & want to legitimize it through exaggeration, over reaction, & sensationalism. Scutter like this gives feminists a bad name if you ask me

Retr0gamer

krudler wrote: »

Naughty Dog are one company who do female characters really well, look at Uncharted, Elena and Chloe are two well rounded characters who help Drake out as much as he helps them and are never really much in the damsel in distress role, holding their own in gunfights and letting fly with witty one liners. And then the villain in 3 is a middle aged woman, not a big titted vixen as its so easy to do, yay for female roles with character and a story arc.

Have to disagree with you there. While they are more proactive than most female characters in games and have snappy dialogue they laways seem to manage to get themselves captured. Naughty Dog get far too much credit for good writing when really they aren't so good at it but their writer can do very good dialogue.

There's far better examples of strong, independant female characters in other games. Phantasy Star has always had great female characters and was created by a woman as well. Alis from the first game is the lead character and Alys Brangwin from PSIV is superb. Lenneth from Valkyrie Profile as well was another non sexualised female lead. Jeanne the D'Arc from the game with the same title.

Then there's games that offer far more realistic portrayals of women. Shin Megami Tensei has always been well written and the females in the Persona series are very believable portrayals of teenage girls. You've also got the female leads of stuff like Forbidden Siren.

I'm sorry it's not just wrong to say that Naughty Dog can only do female characters but they don't even do the best ones.

Myrddin

Besides, only someone like Retr0 would enjoy playing as a princess trying to rescue a prince

Retr0gamer

wandatowell wrote: »

Female characters tend to bore me

I for one think there should be more female leads and characters in games, I think they make far more interesting characters.

However that might be due to the quality of the writers behind games. The ones that only include men tend to be dominated by meat head jocks. It takes a braver and much better writer to write female characters well.

Retr0gamer

EnterNow wrote: »

Besides, only someone like Retr0 would enjoy playing as a princess trying to rescue a prince

Actually in a RPG that lets you pick a gender I usually pick a female. Mass Effect is a far better game with femshep. It's far more interesting thanks to Jennifer Hale's acting.

Retr0gamer

I loved Farah in PoP Sands of Time, great dialogue and wasn't afraid to put the prince in his place and he ultimately became a better person because of her. Now that's a fantastic character and get the feeling Naughty Dog were trying to emulate that in the uncharted games and not really reaching those levels.

Myrddin

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Actually in a RPG that lets you pick a gender I usually pick a female. Mass Effect is a far better game with femshep. It's far more interesting thanks to Jennifer Hale's acting.

Ah I'm just kidding To put it simply, I think the majority of gaming demographic is by far & away male, this results in more male-centric characters etc. It's definitely not an that men just want to trivialize women.

wandatowell

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I for one think there should be more female leads and characters in games, I think they make far more interesting characters.

Absolutely right, I should have been clearer. I hate the fact women can be used only to develop the male characters story arc.

OwaynOTT

What about Super Princess Peach?

CiDeRmAn

Beyond Good & Evil was an amazing game, that it happened to have a female protagonist was impressive, not because they just swapped a male character model for that of the opposite sex but that they took a positive, brave female and built a story around her, with her ambition and responses to the antagonists behaviour always feeling authentic. Here is a woman who is not just a cypher for male desire or to be rescued.
The game does make the male playable character a bit of a meathead, ad he is a soldier, so perhaps Ubisoft weren't quite brave enough to keep things "real".
Them again, this is a game with anthropomorphic pigs, so perhaps we should be satisfied with what we got.
Alyx Vance is another great character, her relationship with the art all times silent Gordon is developed, with trust and affection emerging as the story progresses. Yes, she does require rescuing at one point but, then, so does Gordon, with Alyx's robot DOG saving your backside as well as Alyx herself and others throughout the game.

johnny_ultimate

I'm glad these videos are getting attention, even if in so many cases it's the wrong type of attention (and really the extreme personal abuse and piggish ignorance she's been subjected to is nothing less than disgusting and embarrassing).

I don't think this is the most remarkable critical analysis that has ever been conducted by any stretch, and anyone familiar with wider feminist theory will know it can very often take its otherwise valid points and push them way too far (Germaine Greer, for example, has some wonderful writing on a range of art & social issues, but also some that is absolutely infuriating). Still, it is a fairly critical analysis of some recurrent tropes and language employed by game developers that we shouldn't entirely forgive on flimsy notions such as 'they just exist to profit'. These are worth drawing attention to, as really any efforts that are made to ultimately help gaming become a more diverse, inclusive medium will benefit us all even if you don't think you care. Because really even some of the characterisation and worlds drawn by many exemplary video games are pretty amateurish and straightforward compared to other mediums. Just imagine an attempt to apply queer or political theory to games - it would be an exercise in futility given the poor quality of the texts you'd be dealing with.

I also think some of the criticisms of this video series are a little off the mark, since the rest of the series (including the next one in the series) are promising to take a look at the ones that got it right or at least partially right, and even the latest video takes time to point out 'here's some ones that actually make a bit of an effort to mix things around a bit' (Dear Esther, To The Moon and Passage rightly singled-out towards the end part two). They're long videos, sure, but there is a bigger picture argument playing out here that will be hard to fully critique until the series is complete since the individual videos are basically just one paragraph of an essay. Even the first three videos are just 'chapter one' in a bigger thesis.

Still, I'm not saying Sarkeesian is a wonderful critic by any stretch, although I generally agree and am interested in the arguments she's making even if there's no doubt a very specific theoretical agenda behind it all. Still, compared to pretty much every mainstream video gamer, she is at least approaching games in a more in-depth, serious and analytical manner that is solely lacking in the wider world of games journalism. As Jonathan Blow was rightly pointing out on Twitter yesterday, so many critics treat games as products, unable to engage with them on anything other than the most shallow of levels. Even niche, enthusiast sites like the in-depth HG101 overviews of games can read like glorified Wikipedia articles rather than intelligent critiques of the series in question. There's a place for all that, but unfortunately there are very few actual, critically engaged writers out there. It's why I value some of the columnists in Edge so much - forget their reviews, it's the likes of Steven Poole, Clint Hocking and Randy Smith that actually reliably examine and critique the language of games and the way they fundamentally (don't) work. A few websites like Gamasutra also do a decent job (their currently featured short but interesting Virtue's Last Reward article / interview concerning the interaction of narrative and gameplay, for example), but such sites are again pretty thin on the ground.

We simply generally need to look at games in a more critical manner - just read an issue of Sight & Sound or any decent book review to see how far behind proper criticism is in gaming. And while Sarkeesian's video series so far is far from perfect, it's IMO a welcome thing that people are watching them and in some (too few, probably) cases proactively engaging with the arguments being made. These dialogues are important, and we all need to be more comfortable with getting down to the nitty gritty of how games work and what they can do to be altogether better. Sarkeesian alone isn't going to make the difference, but at least she's trying and at least occasionally succeeding in saying things of note.

Andrew76

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm glad these videos are getting attention, even if in so many cases it's the wrong type of attention (and really the extreme personal abuse and piggish ignorance she's been subjected to is nothing less than disgusting and embarrassing).

I don't think this is the most remarkable critical analysis that has ever been conducted by any stretch, and anyone familiar with wider feminist theory will know it can very often take its otherwise valid points and push them way too far (Germaine Greer, for example, has some wonderful writing on a range of art & social issues, but also some that is absolutely infuriating). Still, it is a fairly critical analysis of some recurrent tropes and language employed by game developers that we shouldn't entirely forgive on flimsy notions such as 'they just exist to profit'. These are worth drawing attention to, as really any efforts that are made to ultimately help gaming become a more diverse, inclusive medium will benefit us all even if you don't think you care. Because really even some of the characterisation and worlds drawn by many exemplary video games are pretty amateurish and straightforward compared to other mediums. Just imagine an attempt to apply queer or political theory to games - it would be an exercise in futility given the poor quality of the texts you'd be dealing with.

I also think some of the criticisms of this video series are a little off the mark, since the rest of the series (including the next one in the series) are promising to take a look at the ones that got it right or at least partially right, and even the latest video takes time to point out 'here's some ones that actually make a bit of an effort to mix things around a bit' (Dear Esther, To The Moon and Passage rightly singled-out towards the end part two). They're long videos, sure, but there is a bigger picture argument playing out here that will be hard to fully critique until the series is complete since the individual videos are basically just one paragraph of an essay. Even the first three videos are just 'chapter one' in a bigger thesis.

Still, I'm not saying Sarkeesian is a wonderful critic by any stretch, although I generally agree and am interested in the arguments she's making even if there's no doubt a very specific theoretical agenda behind it all. Still, compared to pretty much every mainstream video gamer, she is at least approaching games in a more in-depth, serious and analytical manner that is solely lacking in the wider world of games journalism. As Jonathan Blow was rightly pointing out on Twitter yesterday, so many critics treat games as products, unable to engage with them on anything other than the most shallow of levels. Even niche, enthusiast sites like the in-depth HG101 overviews of games can read like glorified Wikipedia articles rather than intelligent critiques of the series in question. There's a place for all that, but unfortunately there are very few actual, critically engaged writers out there. It's why I value some of the columnists in Edge so much - forget their reviews, it's the likes of Steven Poole, Clint Hocking and Randy Smith that actually reliably examine and critique the language of games and the way they fundamentally (don't) work. A few websites like Gamasutra also do a decent job (their currently featured short but interesting Virtue's Last Reward article / interview concerning the interaction of narrative and gameplay, for example), but such sites are again pretty thin on the ground.

We simply generally need to look at games in a more critical manner - just read an issue of Sight & Sound or any decent book review to see how far behind proper criticism is in gaming. And while Sarkeesian's video series so far is far from perfect, it's IMO a welcome thing that people are watching them and in some (too few, probably) cases proactively engaging with the arguments being made. These dialogues are important, and we all need to be more comfortable with getting down to the nitty gritty of how games work and what they can do to be altogether better. Sarkeesian alone isn't going to make the difference, but at least she's trying and at least occasionally succeeding in saying things of note.

I disagree with her main point that female characters needing to be rescued is "regressive crap" and that it has a negative impact outside games or for women in society. That's complete rubbish.

How many Mario or Zelda games have you played in your life? Have you grown up to be a male chauvinist pig because you were trying to save a female? Do you treat women as second class citizens because of it? I hope not. What about Bayonetta, she has a nice set of tits, tiny waist and a great ass, hardly representative of the 'average' female figure - did you protest this and not buy the game? I bet you didn't. How many humans/animals/zombies/civilisations have you killed in games? How many have you kiiled in real life (zombies excluded)?

So, basically I disagree with the points she made in that first video.

On the wider point you make of not enough people critiquing games (and hence praising her for trying) - what benefit do you think will come of games being critiqued more? Will it improve the 'quality' of games according to your own standards? Do you feel games aren't represented correctly in society? Why does that bother you (if it does)?

I've mentioned before that for me personally games are a form of entertainment, no different to a film - a few minutes/hours break from reality. They've become much less important to me as I've got older as I've less time for them. But I am interested in hearing other people's opinions on the gaming industry and what games mean to them and to see how it's evolved since the '80s when I first encountered it.

Myrddin

Andrew76 wrote: »

I disagree with her main point that female characters needing to be rescued is "regressive crap" and that it has a negative impact outside games or for women in society. That's complete rubbish.

Fully agree, it's complete & utter nonsense. If it puts me in pig ignorant/disgusting & embarrassing camp then so be it, but I stand by take on it.

I too see games as entertainment, there is a very niche category of games that might fall into the games-as-art type, but they seem few & far between in comparison to the market as a whole. You can critique anything you want, pigeon crap for example, but at the end of the day pigeon crap is pigeon crap all the shouty pretentiousness in the world won't change the fact its pigeon crap.

I grew up saving Princess Peach from Bowser, for years & years I saved her. At no point in my life, did i ever feel Princess Peach was Mario's possession, & he just wanted his possession back. I think she finds issue with it because she wants to find issue with it, not because there is an issue.

johnny_ultimate

Andrew76 wrote: »

I disagree with her main point that female characters needing to be rescued is "regressive crap" and that it has a negative impact outside games or for women in society. That's complete rubbish.

How many Mario or Zelda games have you played in your life? Have you grown up to be a male chauvinist pig because you were trying to save a female? Do you treat women as second class citizens because of it? I hope not. What about Bayonetta, she has a nice set of tits and a great ass, hardly representative of the 'average' female figure - did you protest this and not buy the game? I bet you didn't. How many humans/animals/zombies/civilisations have you killed in games? How many have you kiiled in real life (zombies excluded)?

The point where I disagree with the analysis is the suggestion that there's a direct 'cause and effect' between the actions in video games and reality. The point where I completely agree with the videos is that there is a profoundly limited range of representation of female characters in gaming. That these common tropes and stereotypes indicate a significant lack of imagination on the part of developers, and one that means gaming comes across as rather adolescent at times. I can easily see how many women would be turned off games by the portrayal of females in games. And really, I couldn't count the amount of times I've cringed at some moment of childish misogyny or ignorance even in otherwise absolutely excellent games.

The disclaimer at the start of the videos says it all - that's it's perfectly possible to enjoy these games even while critiquing certain aspects of them. I could easily point out issues I have with the portrayal of female characters in Bayonetta, Virtues Last Reward or Far Cry 3 to take but three examples off the top of my head, but that doesn't mean in various other aspects they're absolutely fantastically designed games. That they do everything else really well but are a bit embarrassing in that one respect is IMO a failing of too many games to be mere coincidence.

Although I do feel that the horrific sexist reactions of many respondents when the announcement of this video series was indicative that there are fundamental issues with the way games are discussed, and how unwelcoming many gamers (at least those discussing games online) are of alternative opinions. Similarly the way many female game creators have been treated, or the rampant sexism / homophobia on Xbox Live and the like. A minority making the majority look bad. Generally, I do think there are societal inadequacies with gender balance in the media (I'd say the same thing about female directors, incidentally), but that's tangential to this topic, and one that has been discussed at length on this forum before!

On the wider point you make of not enough people critiquing games (and hence praising her for trying) - what benefit do you think will come of games being critiqued more? Will it improve the 'quality' of games according to your own standards? Do you feel games aren't represented correctly in society? Why does that bother you (if it does)?

I've mentioned before that for me personally games are a form of entertainment, no different to a film - a few minutes/hours break from reality. They've become much less important to me as I've got older as I've less time for them. But I am interested in hearing other people's opinions on the gaming industry and what games mean to them and to see how it's evolved since the '80s when I first encountered it.

Well we're going to have to fundamentally disagree on the 'just entertainment' approach, because I'm hardwired to approach pretty much any media I consume with a critical eye. Just the way I am. I love trying to tease out how things work or don't work for me personally, and love hearing a variety of opinions about any given game, film, book, whatever. Obviously I take cinema more seriously than gaming as I'm much more invested in it on personal and professional level, but I'm always fascinated in looking at games in-depth too.

I also think a healthy critical landscape can be hugely beneficial for any given field. If we look at film, the French New Wave of the 1950s and 60s emerged directly as a result of criticism - the critics analysing and breaking down the films they were being fed (especially from America), and then taking the extra step and making efforts to practically counter what they felt was wrong / right with the medium they loved - whether that's Chris Marker declaring his love for Vertigo in Sans Soleil, Jacques Demy breaking down re-appropriating the values of the Hollywood musical in Umbrellas of Cherbourg, or Godard critiquing the various generic tropes of commercial cinema. Their subsequent experiments in form and storytelling directly shifted the scope of what was possible in film, and irrevocably changed cinema for the better in innumerable ways (for the worse too in some cases, although I doubt anyone would be interested in a meandering rant about my love/hate relationship with Jean Luc Godard's films).

Mostly, I think criticism can far from killing our enjoyment significantly enhance it as we can begin to appreciate it on a deeper level - that in sitting down and exploring something after the fact we can discover so much more about it (Bioshock Infinite was a great example of that recently that IMO really benefited from a thematic and formal analysis). And when the creators begin operating on this more analytical level, then the results are better for all of us - we all benefit from the fact that there are developers (particularly indie at the moment, although some mainstream ones too) attempting to address what they feel are systemic problems with the way games operate in terms of representation, narrative, gameplay etc... I particularly love when developers are willing to jot down their thought process somewhere - it's why I look forward to Hocking and Smith's columns every month.

Even for those with no interest in games other than playing 'em and moving on, the actual entertainment will be so much stronger when there's more variety, accessibility and innovation. It would be ridiculous to assume everyone is interested in criticism, of course, but I don't think it should be discouraged whether you're of a militant 'gaming as art' viewpoint or 'gaming as entertainment' one because it will affect us all one way or t'other even if you're not directly engaging with it.

deathrider

OwaynOTT wrote: »

What about Super Princess Peach?

Peach is probably pretty sexist. The only time she gets her own game, and the theme is that she can't keep her emotions in check. If you were to dig into it like that, I wouldn't say it bodes too well from a female standpoint. Great little game though.

Retr0gamer

Has she touched on the Bayonetta character yet?

deathrider

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Has she touched on the Bayonetta character yet?

No, she's still just doing damsels at the moment. I believe she gave her views on Bayonetta before though.

Retr0gamer

I hope whenshe does come around to it she actually remembers that her character and her look was designed by a woman.

fergalr

I think the series is very good, and very even handed.
I think the reaction of a lot of gamers to it has been very bad.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Unfortunately she does, and never focuses on any times videogames did it right making it far less of a critical analysis and more of a rant..

The videos released so far are the first two parts of a series.
She has specific sections dedicated to the times video games do it right, later on.

Maybe you didn't know she was going to that, although she was pretty upfront about it.
Its ironic that you accuse her of only selectively looking at the times videogames, while only selectively looking at certain parts of her project.

wandatowell wrote: »

I was enjoying the second video, until

wtf woman?

Yeah, there's a lot of violence against women; its pretty terrible.
Is there another point you were making?

EnterNow wrote: »

When the player's princess/girlfriend is taken & the gameplay is the task to rescue her, it essentially means that the characters property was taken & he wants his possession back. Oh ffs, have you ever heard such tripe in all your life? Maybe the character, actually, yknow, loves his girl & wants to save her? God no, that wouldn't be likely.

When the only purpose of a female character is to be stolen by a baddie, in order to give the hero motivation to retrieve her, and when there's nothing in the game about the relationship, and no characterisation of the female, then the female has basically been relegated to the role of a possession. That's the point thats being made, and its a pretty good one. If instead of a girlfriend, it was the hero's favorite trophy, or [insert other possession here] nothing would change.

Andrew76 wrote: »

I disagree with her main point that female characters needing to be rescued is "regressive crap" and that it has a negative impact outside games or for women in society. That's complete rubbish.

How many Mario or Zelda games have you played in your life? Have you grown up to be a male chauvinist pig because you were trying to save a female? Do you treat women as second class citizens because of it? I hope not.

Wait, are you saying that in order for a work to be 'regressive crap', or to have a negative impact, it has to transform people into chauvinist pigs?
It couldn't just be bad, and make people think 'oh thats bad', or influence them, but only in a subtle way?

Andrew76 wrote: »

What about Bayonetta, she has a nice set of tits, tiny waist and a great ass, hardly representative of the 'average' female figure - did you protest this and not buy the game? I bet you didn't.

You are saying that if you buy a game, you can't object to any part of it?

Andrew76 wrote: »

How many humans/animals/zombies/civilisations have you killed in games? How many have you kiiled in real life (zombies excluded)?

So, basically I disagree with the points she made in that first video.

I missed the part where she said that everyone who had killed a zombie in a video game had turned into a homicidal maniac?

Anyway, that's a stupid argument.
It'd be like if you were saying that high fructose corn syrup couldn't be bad for you, because it doesn't kill everyone who eats it.

Her argument is much more nuanced than that. She's saying that the portrayal of women in video games might be influencing us in a subtle way. She points out this is bad, because there's already a lot of bad attitudes towards women.

Andrew76 wrote: »

On the wider point you make of not enough people critiquing games (and hence praising her for trying) - what benefit do you think will come of games being critiqued more? Will it improve the 'quality' of games according to your own standards?

Yes, hopefully. Criticism of a medium serves to point out the stuff thats going wrong with it, hopefully makes people demand better stuff in future, and then developers will make better stuff in future.

Andrew76 wrote: »

Do you feel games aren't represented correctly in society? Why does that bother you (if it does)?

I don't see how thats relevant, but it really annoys me whenever they show games on TV and its people hammering the controllers which make pew-pew noises :-)

Separately, I feel games isn't taken seriously as a medium, and isnt held to high standards, by gamers, by game developers, and, as a consequence, by everyone else. Thats why the occasional games that come along and really are something special are also ignored.

Andrew76 wrote: »

I've mentioned before that for me personally games are a form of entertainment, no different to a film - a few minutes/hours break from reality.

Yes, they are entertainment for me, too.
You'd be in a pretty tough spot if you were looking to games as more than entertainment at the moment.
But I hope it won't always be like that. I hope some day we'll learn stuff about the human condition from playing games. You occasionally find a game that can be beautiful, or artistic, or teach you something new about life, its just very rare.

In the meanwhile, I'd like to see more interesting characters, of every sex.

Andrew76 wrote: »

They've become much less important to me as I've got older as I've less time for them. But I am interested in hearing other people's opinions on the gaming industry and what games mean to them and to see how it's evolved since the '80s when I first encountered it.

The best has evolved a lot, but there's a lot of room for improvement, imo.

ancapailldorcha

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I hope whenshe does come around to it she actually remembers that her character and her look was designed by a woman.

Who was probably told to design her that way.

o1s1n

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Who was probably told to design her that way.

Yeah, poor women, forces to design sexist things because theyre too weak to have their own opinions.

You do realize that line of thinking is equally as detrimental to women?

ancapailldorcha

o1s1n wrote: »

Yeah, poor women, forces to design sexist things because theyre too weak to have their own opinions.

You do realize that line of thinking is equally as detrimental to women?

That's not what I said. I doubt that the woman who created the character had much freedom in how she would be designed. Of course, the call to make the character that way could have come from a woman. I've not played the game and know little or nothing about how it was designed.

Retr0gamer

According to her she had a lot of freedom and Kamiya went with her very first design. His only big contribution was the glasses.

Myrddin

fergalr wrote: »

When the only purpose of a female character is to be stolen by a baddie, in order to give the hero motivation to retrieve her, and when there's nothing in the game about the relationship, and no characterisation of the female, then the female has basically been relegated to the role of a possession. That's the point thats being made, and its a pretty good one. If instead of a girlfriend, it was the hero's favorite trophy, or [insert other possession here] nothing would change.

Sometimes a game is just a game. Sometimes, there's barely any space for music on some carts let alone characterisation. Should Double Dragon have included a narrative, detailing the girlfriend going through her early teens, losing her Grandma to cancer, then dealing with the breakup of her parents, all the while studying to better herself?

Obviously I'm looking at this from a retro gaming perspective, characterisation wasn't a big deal back then. Should men be offended at the lack of characterisation of Bimmy & Jimmy? Doesn't it paint men as knuckleheads who just want to fight? Why didn't they negotiate peacefully with the bad guys? Tsk tsk.

I agree in modern gaming, the role of women in games isn't portrayed, expanded on, or utilized well at all. There is a lot of pandering to teenage male stuff going on, & it's perfectly valid for this to be brought up & debated. I'd agree with the author of the vids completely there. What I disagree with strongly though, is this whole possession thing. Just because I free'd Zelda from the castle in Hyrule, doesn't mean in real life that I perceive women as people who need saving etc. I find that notion, well, frankly, complete nonsense.

OwaynOTT

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's not what I said. I doubt that the woman who created the character had much freedom in how she would be designed. Of course, the call to make the character that way could have come from a woman. I've not played the game and know little or nothing about how it was designed.

Shouldn't really be commenting on the game so, if you know so little about the subject.

Retr0gamer

I don't get her whole dinosaur planet tirade either. In that one she is really making a lot of stuff up. It only makes sense if the game was changed due to the main character being unmarketable. There is absolutely no evidence of this and the real reason is more than likely due to the fact that Nintendo were desperate to get a franchise on to the Gamecube since they had no Mario at Launch and changing Dinosaur Planet to a Starfox game was a better candidate. She really pulled that one out of her ass.

o1s1n

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That's not what I said. I doubt that the woman who created the character had much freedom in how she would be designed. Of course, the call to make the character that way could have come from a woman. I've not played the game and know little or nothing about how it was designed.

How can you assume she didn't have much freedom in how she was designing the character when you know nothing about the game or the design process for the game?

The only thing you had to work on was that she was a woman. Therefore because she was a woman and the character is shapely, she 'obviously didn't have any control over the design because a woman would never have designed that'. That's all someone could take from your post if you don't know anything about the game itself.

Bayonetta is actually a kick ass female character who takes no **** from anyone. On the surface it might appear to be a shapely design for teen boys to fap over (and what I thought myself before playing and one of the reasons I stayed away from it for ages) - but it's far from the case.

blag

Here's a video of her talking about Bayonetta. Half the video is dedicated to discussing the Japanese Subway advertising and what she has to say about the actual game suggests that she hasn't played it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbihPTgAql4

ancapailldorcha

o1s1n wrote: »

How can you assume she didn't have much freedom in how she was designing the character when you know nothing about the game or the design process for the game?

The only thing you had to work on was that she was a woman. Therefore because she was a woman and the character is shapely, she 'obviously didn't have any control over the design because a woman would never have designed that'. That's all someone could take from your post if you don't know anything about the game itself.

Bayonetta is actually a kick ass female character who takes no **** from anyone. On the surface it might appear to be a shapely design for teen boys to fap over (and what I thought myself before playing and one of the reasons I stayed away from it for ages) - but it's far from the case.

I just assumed that whoever was in charge of the project wanted an attractive female lead. I can imagine the head of the Uncharted project walking into the designers' office and asking for a rugged, muscular lead for the project with feedback given and alterations made on various designs before Nathan Drake as we know him emerged. My comment wasn't suggesting that women can't design these characters, I was stating that a designer wouldn't have a huge amount of autonomy in designing art assets. The final say can come from anyone of any gender, race, creed, sexual orientation, etc...
As far as the game itself goes, I've heard the rave reviews and bought it several months ago but never got round to playing it. It's still sealed in my living room beside by recently deceased PS3. I'm questioning whether or not it's worth replacing so it's unlikely I'll ever get to play it.

Andrew76

blag wrote: »

Here's a video of her talking about Bayonetta. Half the video is dedicated to discussing the Japanese Subway advertising and what she has to say about the actual game suggests that she hasn't played it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbihPTgAql4

"Pornographic poses..."

fergalr

EnterNow wrote: »

Sometimes a game is just a game. Sometimes, there's barely any space for music on some carts let alone characterisation.

I'm not sure the space on the cart is relevant.
Anyway, text, narrative, is cheap/small compared to music.

EnterNow wrote: »

Should Double Dragon have included a narrative, detailing the girlfriend going through her early teens, losing her Grandma to cancer, then dealing with the breakup of her parents, all the while studying to better herself?

But double dragon did have a narrative, albeit brief. The girl got punched in the stomach and 'stolen'. Yes, it was brief - she is only there to give the guys a reason to fight. Which is one of the points made in the Tropes video.

At the end, the two guys, after fighting off all those baddies together, then fight to the death to see who gets the girl.
I enjoyed playing double dragon when I was like ten or something, but the narrative is pretty bad stuff.

EnterNow wrote: »

Obviously I'm looking at this from a retro gaming perspective, characterisation wasn't a big deal back then.

Even if it wasnt a big deal, someone went through the trouble of making that opening scene. It didn't happen automatically; decisions were made, time and money was spent on it.

EnterNow wrote: »

Should men be offended at the lack of characterisation of Bimmy & Jimmy? Doesn't it paint men as knuckleheads who just want to fight? Why didn't they negotiate peacefully with the bad guys? Tsk tsk.

But the point is that its not about individual games in isolation. The point is that there's a widespread trend to portray of women in video games as not real characters, just as things to fight over, etc.
Its not just about one game.
If it was just one game, or a small number of games that portrayed women in that way, then it wouldn't be a systemic issue. Small things can become big issues when they are systemic.


If the characterisation of males as knuckleheads who only want to fight was as widespread, that would also be bad - and you could probably make that point.

EnterNow wrote: »

I agree in modern gaming, the role of women in games isn't portrayed, expanded on, or utilized well at all. There is a lot of pandering to teenage male stuff going on, & it's perfectly valid for this to be brought up & debated. I'd agree with the author of the vids completely there. What I disagree with strongly though, is this whole possession thing. Just because I free'd Zelda from the castle in Hyrule, doesn't mean in real life that I perceive women as people who need saving etc. I find that notion, well, frankly, complete nonsense.

No one is saying that just because you played a single game where you saved a princess that you perceive women as possessions.

The argument is that people are influenced by the cultural stereotypes that appear in the media they interact with, and that women are heavily stereotyped as 'things that need saving' in video games, and that this is probably a bad thing, and, set against the backdrop of a world where there is a lot of violence against women, is something we might want to improve.

And, like, thats a much subtler, but much stronger argument; maybe uncomfortably strong.


If the videos were some crazy person saying "Oh, you will turn into a woman hater if you've played zelda once" then we could all just say "that person is being crazy".


But thats not what her videos are saying.

I played a lot of games as a kid. Like the books I read, or the movies I watched, they probably did influence me. Did they completely determine my personality, and views on things? No, of course not. But thats not the argument.

Were they an influence that might have negatively effected the stereotypes of women that I took on board? Maybe. Probably?


Now that wouldnt really be something we'd worry about, if everything in the wider world was fine when it came to how men see women. But everything isn't fine - there's a lot of domestic violence towards women, for example.


So, given that there are a lot of men that don't treat women very well, its logical to ask 'hmm, why dont they treat women well?'.
If there was just one guy who beat his wife, we might say 'oh, hes just a bad guy'.
But when its widespread, you start to worry that theres a cultural problem.

And then its logical to think 'gosh, maybe the cultural influences that stereotype women as posessions, such as those video games, are worth thinking about. Maybe, as gamers, we should demand games that portray women better'.

Now, sure, there are loads of other cultural influences, too, many of which might be bigger - but that doesnt mean that video games should get a free pass. And of course, there are also games where women are portrayed well.

But the argument made in the videos is rational, and solid, and worth gamers taking seriously, imo.

Andrew76

fergalr wrote: »

But thats not what her videos are saying.

I played a lot of games as a kid. Like the books I read, or the movies I watched, they probably did influence me. Did they completely determine my personality, and views on things? No, of course not. But thats not the argument.

Were they an influence that might have negatively effected the stereotypes of women that I took on board? Maybe. Probably?


Now that wouldnt really be something we'd worry about, if everything in the wider world was fine when it came to how men see women. But everything isn't fine - there's a lot of domestic violence towards women, for example.


So, given that there are a lot of men that don't treat women very well, its logical to ask 'hmm, why dont they treat women well?'.
If there was just one guy who beat his wife, we might say 'oh, hes just a bad guy'.
But when its widespread, you start to worry that theres a cultural problem.

And then its logical to think 'gosh, maybe the cultural influences that stereotype women as posessions, such as those video games, are worth thinking about. Maybe, as gamers, we should demand games that portray women better'.

Now, sure, there are loads of other cultural influences, too, many of which might be bigger - but that doesnt mean that video games should get a free pass. And of course, there are also games where women are portrayed well.

But the argument made in the videos is rational, and solid, and worth gamers taking seriously, imo.

Just to be clear, are you saying that playing video games is one cause of domestic violence towards women? If you are saying this, do you have any links to studies that show evidence of this?

fergalr

Andrew76 wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you saying that playing video games is one cause of domestic violence towards women? If you are saying this, do you have any links to studies that show evidence of this?

What do you mean by 'cause' in this context?

Andrew76

fergalr wrote: »

What do you mean by 'cause' in this context?

Cause as in 'the reason why something happens'.

Are you saying that playing video games where females are portrayed negatively (in your opinion) is one cause or one reason, why domestic violence towards women happens?

Basically I haven't understood the link you are making with video games and domestic violence towards women, if you are making any such link.

fergalr

Andrew76 wrote: »

Cause as in 'the reason why something happens'.

'Cause' often isnt a simple thing.

Consider:
a "The german attack on poland on sept 1st caused WW2"
b "Hitler caused WW2"
c "Poor economic conditions in germany caused WW2"
d "The punititive terms of the treaty of Versailles caused WW2"
e "The unification of the german states into a really big single country caused WW2"
f "The fact that germany was in europe caused WW2"
g "The fact that humans are aggressive caused WW2"
h "The value of the cosmological constants caused WW2"


You could say they are all 'causes'. People might generally be looking for something like b,c,d when asking 'did X cause WW2'.
A lot of people would say that 'h' is unhelpful.

But you could discuss any of the above.

Andrew76 wrote: »

Are you saying that playing video games where females are portrayed negatively (in your opinion) is one cause or one reason, why domestic violence towards women happens?

I'm saying it might be a contributing factor. Maybe only a small factor. Its very hard to tell.

I guess I'd be willing to believe that widespread negative stereotypes of women, in the content we consume, might affect how people later treat women.

I'd be surprised if video games had a big role. But they might be one part of a cultural trend that affects how people see women. Its hard to know. But its plausible to me.

If they are having a negative influence, then probably we should try and fix them, even if we can't be sure.

I don't know if you want to call that a 'cause'.


I don't even know how important it is to establish whether its a 'cause'.
Its something thats not good, and should probably be improved, especially if its plausible that it might be contributing to a serious social problem.


Not by banning video games or anything, but by taking videos like this seriously, and thinking critically about what we consume, and, if a game has a lot of bad messages in it, maybe not buying it, or asking the developers to do better next time.

deathrider

fergalr wrote: »

Not by banning video games or anything, but by taking videos like this seriously, and thinking critically about what we consume, and, if a game has a lot of bad messages in it, maybe not buying it, or asking the developers to do better next time.

Would this not just boil down to the individual in question though? For example, I'm a huge Mortal Kombat fan that pretty much plays violence as up-scale an in-the-spotlight as can be. I've merrily beaten up it's characters for the last twenty years, yet I'm not a violent person by any stretch of the imagination. I could be one of the most chilled out people you're ever likely to meet. It's covered in fairly bad messages- using violence to get what you want, reagrdless of the price- all wrapped up in a pretty little Good Vs Evil tale. Yet, again, I'm not a violent person. Could the same thing not be said for this sexism storm surrounding video games? That if you allow it to influence you in a sexist nature, just the same as if you were to allow it to influence you in a violent nature, then it's you who has the issues. Not the games, movies, books, music or whatever else you may consume.

Retr0gamer

I heard Ike Turner was mad for a bit of Bayonetta.

fergalr

deathrider wrote: »

Would this not just boil down to the individual in question though? For example, I'm a huge Mortal Kombat fan that pretty much plays violence as up-scale an in-the-spotlight as can be. I've merrily beaten up it's characters for the last twenty years, yet I'm not a violent person by any stretch of the imagination. I could be one of the most chilled out people you're ever likely to meet. It's covered in fairly bad messages- using violence to get what you want, reagrdless of the price- all wrapped up in a pretty little Good Vs Evil tale. Yet, again, I'm not a violent person. Could the same thing not be said for this sexism storm surrounding video games? That if you allow it to influence you in a sexist nature, just the same as if you were to allow it to influence you in a violent nature, then it's you who has the issues. Not the games, movies, books, music or whatever else you may consume.

That's a tricky subject; all I can do is give my personal opinion.

Its close to a hard area: when do you hold someone personally accountable for their actions, and when do you look at what influences them?

If someone is violent when they are drunk, is the fact that they were drunk a mitigating factor? Is it their fault for getting drunk, because they should have known they'd get violent? Or maybe we say 'no, its you that has the problem, not the alcohol'. Or maybe we say 'lots of people drink, and dont have problems, so the problem is with you'.
What if their drink is spiked, and they then make a bad decision? Is that different?
What if a bad person puts a powerful hallucinogenic in their drink, and they then do mad stuff?

Personal responsibility is a tough topic to reason about.


If someone hits another person, should we take into account if they were beaten as a child, and learned that pattern of behaviour? Or perhaps if they grew up in a culture of violence? Or do we just say that its them that has the problem?


If a dog goes to bite you when you reach out to pet it, you'll say its a bad dog, and be angry with it.
But if you discover that the same dog has been abused as a puppy, your heart would probably soften.



Violence in games is a tough topic.

1) One possibility to consider, is that there's someone who is crazy, and looking for something bad to do, and is looking for inspiration, and is inspired by what they see in a video game to do something bad in a particular way thats depicted in a game. And if there wasn't a violent game, they'd have chosen a movie, or some other form.
I don't think you can blame the game much there.

2) Another possibility is that there's someone who is a bit crazy, and has no strong moral code, and is somehow influenced by what they see in a game they play a lot. If the game is about cake, they'd give people cake; but its about killing, so they kill people - or otherwise become violent, in some less extreme way. Do people like that exist? I don't know. If they did, can you blame the game? Hard to say - but it seems more rational than in the previous case.

3) I think are people who can play a game that involves killing, but know clearly that its just a game, and because they are consciously aware of this, the fictional aspects of the game don't have any effect on their actions. I hope I'm one of those people. If everyone is like that, then clearly there's no problem with games.

4) But, what if, instead, its the case that playing violent games influences us in some small way to be slightly more violent or slightly more angry, or to reach for confrontational solutions to problems slightly quicker, than if we played games about negotiation and co-operation? Perhaps this is actually the case? In which case, if most of the games our culture produces involve violence, then things have now gotten a little murkier.


While I'd hope the reality is closer to 3, and while I'd hope that I'm at least personally close to 3, I suspect there are people out there who are closer to 4, or even 2. And sometimes I wonder if perhaps we are all a bit more like 4.

If so, then we should be thinking hard about this stuff.

While you could measure 2, and perhaps detect it in studies, I suspect it would be very hard to measure 4. But that doesnt mean 4 isn't the case.


That's the topic of violence.


How does the topic of sexism compare?
I suspect that relatively subtle sexism is more socially acceptable than violence. I'd guess that 4 is even more likely than 3, with sexism, as compared to with violence.


I don't know, though. I don't think anyone knows.

Even if its only plausible that games are having a mass - though perhaps slight - negative influence, then we should probably demand better as gamers.

Also, selfishly as an individual, I want games that have better and more varied characters ad plots, regardless of their sexes.